iv Voor een opsomming van de belangrijkste in deze ‘superstructuur’ samenvallende cultuurhistorische fenomenen verg. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018) 9-12.

Some aspects of the intellectual heritage of German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) have already been dealt with by the author in general terms[2] - this essay is meant to look at Schmitt’s scientific oeuvre in more detail. The recent publication of the latest book of Belgian Traditionalist publicist Robert Steuckers affords a suitable opportunity for revisiting Schmitt’ work in a more comprehensive fashion. In the Low Countries, Steuckers’ book Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt represents the first substantial monograph dedicated to the rehabilitation of Schmitt’s highly original - and highly topical philosophy of law.[3] For many years, Schmitt’s intellectual universe and life-world were effectively ‘taboo’ due to his - complex and therefore easily vulgarized - association with the Nazi regime. It is a fact that Schmitt became a member of the NSDAP in May 1933, only a few months after Hitler’s seizure of power, and that he supported Hitler’s authoritarian amputation of the Weimar institutions - as did nearly all other German men and women at the time. It is a fact that he was interned by the American occupation authorities after the downfall of the Third Reich[4] and that he consistently refused to be subjected to the politically correct ‘second baptism’ of semi-obligatory ‘denazification’. His principled stance against foreign occupation cost him his academic career and social status. This stance, however, was not inspired by any great enthusiasm - or even basic respect - for the Nazi regime: in Schmitt’s view, this regime was fatally flawed in terms of higher legitimacy and historical authenticity.[5] After Stunde Null, Schmitt simply refused the new ideological Gleichschaltung demanded by the occupying powers. Irrespective of the exact degree to which Schmitt’s work can be considered intrinsically ‘tainted’ in the context of the virulent excesses of National Socialism, the fact remains that his life’s work was placed in the same post-war quarantine that befell the life work of other great European thinkers. It ended up in history’s cabinet of curiosities, together with that of Italy’s Julius Evola, France’s Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Romania’s Mircea Eliade, Norway’s Knut Hamsun and America’s Ezra Pound.

But seventy years later it is becoming increasingly evident that the historical-materialist mythology of ‘progress’ and ‘constructability’, now raised to the status of standard doctrine (with a socialist variety in the Eastern Bloc and a liberal variety in the Western Bloc), has brought Western civilization to the brink of extinction. After the fall of Eastern Bloc Realsozialmus, the entire Western world has fallen prey to what may be termed ‘Cultural Nihilism’: a poisonous cocktail of neo-liberal ‘capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich’ and cultural-marxist ‘identity politics’ (the new ‘class struggle’ of old against young, female against male and black against white). This Cultural Nihilism is characterized by militant secularism (destroying religious cohesion), monetarized social-darwinism (destroying social-economic cohesion), totalitarian matriarchy (destroying family cohesion) and doctrinal oikophobia (destroying ethnic cohesion) and it is practised through the Macht durch Nivellierung (‘power through levelling’) mechanism of the totalitarian-collectivist Gleichheitsstaat.[6] The prime carrier of Cultural Nihilism is still the forever young ‘baby boomer’ generation of rebels without a cause, but that generation is now replacing itself by a time-less, shape-shifting ‘hostile elite’, feeding off continuous new discoveries of ‘repressed minorities’ (resentful feminists, ambitious immigrants, psychotic LBTG-activists). The power of this hostile elite resides in two distinct but intricately linked force fields: (1) the globalist institutional machinery (the ‘letter institutions’ - UN, IMF, WTO, WEF, EU, ECB, NATO) that allows it to overrule state sovereignty and electoral correction and (2) the universalist-humanist discourse of ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ that allows it to monopolize the ‘moral high ground’. This double trans-national and meta-political power position allows the hostile elite to systematically elude any responsibility for the stupendous damage it is inflicting on Western civilization. The crimes committed by the hostile elite - industrial ecocide (anthropogenic climate change, environmental degradation, diabolical bio-industry), hyper-capitalist exploitation (‘free market’, ‘privatization’, ‘social return’), social implosion (matriarchy, feminization, transgenderism) and ethnic replacement (‘asylum policy’, ‘labour migration’, ‘family reunification’) - go unpunished within an institutional and ideological framework that operates literally ‘above the law’. Only an entirely new legal framework can end the legal immunity enjoyed by the hostile elite. Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law provides that new frame: it offers a restoration of the lost link between institutional law and authentic authority and of what is found between these two - actual justice. To restore this link, Schmitt uses the concept of ‘political theology’, i.e. the assumption that all political philosophies are shaped, directly or indirectly, by theological positions that may or may not take on an ostensibly ‘secularized’ shape. From that perspective, the political imperative of promoting institutional laws aimed at immanent justice is derived from transcendently - theologically - defined authority.

The time has come to end the entirely anachronistic and increasingly untenable ‘taboo’ on Carl Schmitt’s work and thought - and to investigate its relevance during the contemporary Crisis of the Postmodern West.[7] Robert Steuckers’ Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt permits us not only a fascinating visit to a monumental past. It also permits us to find the weapons that are needed in the here and now - it gives us access to the mighty ‘Arsenal of Hephaestus’.[8]

(*) As in the earlier review of Steuckers’ work Europa II,[9] the reviewer has chosen for a double presentation of Steuckers’ original French text - sharp and acidic as usual - as well as an English translation. As stated in that earlier review, the reviewer shares the view of patriotic publicist Alfred Vierling that the French literary culture is essentially different from the English literary culture to a degree that virtually precludes one-on-one ‘translation’. This means that French language skills are actually indispensable for any conscientious studia humanitatis. The lack of such skills among the younger generations of the West, however, is not primarily due to any intellectual complacency: it can be directly attributed to the hostile elite’s anti-education policy of deliberate ‘dumbing down’. The reviewer is therefore willing to meet younger readers half-way by presenting both Steuckers’ original text and his own somewhat ‘free’ English translation. Obviously, the reviewer acknowledges his responsibility for the less successful attempts at transposing Steuckers’ ‘biting’ Walloon-French into English. A glossary of Steuckerian neologisms is added at the end of the text.

(**) This essay is not only meant to provide a review, it is also meant as a metapolitical analysis and a contribution to the patriotic-identitarian deconstruction of the Postmodern Western hostile elite. It is important to know who the enemy is, what he aims at and how he thinks. Carl Schmitt’s life work provides an ‘anatomical’ dissection of the hostile elite’s legal philosophy - it effectively deprives the hostile elite of any authentic foundation. Robert Steuckers has achieved a brilliant rehabilitation of Schmitt’s work - the patriotic-identitarian movement of the Low Countries owes him gratitude and congratulations.

(***) On the one hand, those readers that have still been traditionally educated are asked for patience with the somewhat ‘patronizing’ explanatory notes: these are meant to assist those younger readers that have been deprived of their basic intellectual heritage by decades of anti-education. On the other hand, those readers that lack a traditional education - and that may feel ‘put off’ by any ‘pretentious’ text - are asked for an effort at bettering themselves. They should realize that what may appear ‘pretentious’ reflects, in fact, nothing else than their own stolen heritage - the heritage of Western civilization. If the patriotic-identitarian movement is meant to protect anything of value, then it is exactly that: Western civilization itself - ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.[10]

Steuckers commences his extensive overview of the life and work of Carl Schmitt with a reconstruction of the cultural-historical roots of post-war Western legal-philosophical thought. He retraces the historical-materialist reduction - one might say ‘secularization’ - of the Western philosophy of law to the Reformation and the Enlightenment.[12] The religious wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries resulted in the temporary regression of Western civilization into a ‘state of nature’ which could only be partially compensated for by the ‘emergency measure’ of classical Absolutism during the second half of the 17th and the first half of the 18th Century.[13] This ‘emergency brake’ Absolutism is characterized by a highly stylized personification of totally sovereign monarchic power as the last protection of a traditionalist community against the demonic forces of modernist chaos. After the abolition of the old securities of the sacred and feudal order, the ‘absolutist’ monarchs intervene in order to channel the disruptive dynamics of early mercantile capitalism, the incipient civil rights movement and the escalating tendency to religious decentralization. From a cultural-historical perspective, this ultimate resort to ‘hyper-personalized’ Auctoritas can be interpreted as a temporary ‘emergency measure’: ...en cas de normalité, l’autorité peut ne pas jouer, mais en cas d’exception, elle doit décider d’agir, de sévir ou de légiférer. ‘...in normal circumstances, [such an absolute] authority does not play a role, but in exceptional circumstances, it must act in a decisive, over-ruling and legislating fashion.’ (p.4) But this absolutist ‘emergency measure’ is only locally and temporarily effective: the pioneering nations of modernity, such as Great Britain and the Dutch Republic, remain exempt - despite ‘semi-absolutist’ measures such as the Stuart Restoration and the stadtholderate of William III. Even in its heartland, Absolutism reaches its expiry date in less than a century - the American and French Revolutions mark the end of Absolutism and the final Machtergreifung of the bourgeoisie as the new dominant force in the Western political arena.

The bourgeois-capitalist Wille zur Macht is abstractly expressed in a political doctrine that is based on the effective inversion of the preceding Traditionalist philosophy of law (i.e. of the clerical-feudal ‘political theology’): this new Normativism, constructed around bourgeois-capitalist interests, abstractifies and depersonalizes state authority - Thomas Hobbes already describes it as the mythically invisible ‘Leviathan’.[14] Abstractification is achieved through ideologization and depersonalization is achieved through institutionalization: both processes are directed at the foundation and consolidation of the new bourgeois-capitalist hegemony in the political sphere. Rigid routines and mechanical procedures (‘bureaucracy’, ‘administration’, ‘legislation’) replace the human measure and the personal dimension of Traditionalist power: concrete power is replaced by abstract ‘governance’. L’idéologie républicaine ou bourgeoise a voulu dépersonnaliser les mécanismes de la politique. La norme a avancé, au détriment de l‘incarnation du pouvoir. ‘The republican and bourgeois ideology needs to depersonalize the mechanics of politics. It favours normative power over embodied power.’ (p.4) The first consistent experiment with Normativism as Realpolitik ends with the Great Terror of the First French Republic: it illustrates the totalitarian reality that necessarily results from the consistent application of the do-or-die motto that covers the bourgeois-capitalist power project in its formal (republican) as well as its informal (freemasonic) forms: liberté, égalité, et fraternité ou la mort, ‘liberty, equality and fraternity - or death’. The ethical discrepancy between the utopian ideology and the practical application of this power project is ideologically covered by - and established as a norm in - 19th Century Liberalism. Liberalism is the political ‘default setting’ of modernity. The propagandistic surface of Liberalism - its utopia of ‘humanism’, ‘individualism’ and ‘progress’ - covers its deeper substances: the pseudo-scientifically (social-darwinistically) justified economic disenfranchisement (‘monetarization’, ‘free market’, ‘competition’) and social deconstruction (‘individual responsibility’, ‘labour marker participation’, ‘calculating citizenship’) that mathematically result in social implosion (Karl Marx’ Entfremdung and Emile Durkheim’s anomie). In the long term, Liberalism results in a ‘superstructure’ that is based on a very puritanical - and therefore highly resilient - form of Normativism: Liberalism has the highest totalitarian potential of all modernist (historical-materialist) ideologies. Thus, Alexander Dugin historical analysis, translated into English as The Fourth Political Theory, points to the intrinsic - logically-consistent and existentially-adaptive - superiority of Liberalism. ...[L]e libéralisme-normativisme est néanmoins coercitif, voire plus coercitif que la coercition exercée par une personne mortelle, car il ne tolère justement aucune forme d’indépendance personnalisée à l’égard de la norme, du discours conventionnel, de l’idéologie établie, etc., qui seraient des principes immortels, impassables, appelés à régner en dépit des vicissitudes du réel. ‘...[S]till, Liberal Normativism is coercive - it is even much more coercive than the power exerted by any mortal ruler, because it does not tolerate any form of personalized autonomy with regard to its own ‘norm’ (conventional consensus, standard ideology, political correctness), which is elevated to an eternal and unapproachable principle that is permanently exempt from the vagaries of real life’. (p.5) From a sociological perspective, the totalitarian superstructure of Liberal Normativism can be described as ‘hyper-morality’.[15]

The apparently inviolable foundation of the Liberal Normative monolith in the bedrock of Postmodern social psychology raises the question of whether or not it is possible to dislodge by the application of legal philosophy. An affirmative answer to that question depends on breaking through the ‘event horizon’ of Liberal Normative Postmodernity, i.e. stepping beyond its epistemological boundary. A break-out from the ‘timeless’ dimension of Liberal Normativism is by means of an ‘Archaeo-Futurist’ formula: the simultaneous mobilization of re-discovered ancient knowledge and newly discovered strength will provide the necessary combination of imagination and willpower.

2. Through the Glass Ceiling of Postmodernism

ΔΩΣ ΜΟΙ ΠΑ ΣΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΝ ΓΑΝ ΚΙΝΑΣΩ

[give me a place on which to stand, and I will move the Earth]

- Archimedes

One of the most important childhood diseases of the patriotic-identitarian resistance movement, now rising up against the globalist New World Order throughout the entire Western world, is its inability to correctly assess the nature and power of the hostile elite. The widening (‘populist’) public anger and incipient (‘alt-right’) intellectual criticism that feeds this resistance movement are partially characterized by superficial pragmatism (political opportunism) and emotional regression (extremist conspiracy theories). Both of these phenomena can be understood as the political and ideological reflections of the natural instinct of self-preservation: in a confrontation with direct existential threats, such as the ethnic replacement of the Western peoples and the escalating psychosocial deconstruction of Western civilization, political purity and intellectual integrity simply lack priority. Still, it is of vital importance that the patriotic-identitarian movement outgrows these childhood diseases as quickly as possible - especially its ‘quick fix’ political islamophobia and its ‘shortcut’ ideological anti-semitism.[16] It should be empathically stated that this does not imply any recourse to the kind of ‘preventive self-censorship’ that is now practised by the politically correct journalistic and academic establishment with regard to legitimate cultural-historical questions that are embedded within the larger discourses of ‘islamophobia’ and ‘anti-semitism’. The patriotic-identitarian movement is bound to prioritize authentic - not merely legalistic - freedom of expression: it is bound to the position that politically correct (self-)censorship and repressive media policies are counter-productive because they increase public distrust and because they feed political extremism. The obvious ‘pride and prejudice’ of the system press (which stigmatizes every rational cost-benefit analysis of ‘mass-immigration’, ignores the ethnic profiles of ‘grooming gangs’ and re-interprets incidents of islamist terror) and the governmental policy of ‘shoot the messenger’ with regard to critical media (through ‘fake news’ projections, ‘Russian involvement’ smear campaigns and digital ‘deplatforming’) have caused the public to abandon the journalistic and political ‘mainstream’. The downfall of the traditional (paper and television) media and the splintering of the political landscape merely represent the surface reflections of this development. Now it is up to the patriotic-identitarian movement to lead the defence of the old freedoms of press and opinion, freedoms that have been now been discarded by the hostile elite as superfluous - and dangerous.[17] The task of defending Western civilization, which has been sold out by the neo-liberals and betrayed by the cultural-marxists, has now devolved upon the patriotic-identitarian movement. A correct assessment of the nature and power of the hostile elite is now its highest priority - without it, a winning strategy is impossible. A short-cut identification of the ‘enemy’ as ‘the Islam’ or a ‘Jewish world conspiracy’ simply does not stand up to cold calculus and ruthless realism required from this assessment.

The correct identification of the hostile elite requires more than a simple - albeit ethically and existentially correct - reference to its undeniably ‘demonic’ quality. The absolute evil that results from industrial ecocide, bloodthirsty bio-industry, neo-liberal debt slavery and matriarchal social deconstruction is self-evident.[18] But more is needed: it is necessary to achieve a legal understanding and a political strategy that ‘frames’ the hostile elite in a definitive manner. In this regard, Robert Steuckers’ analysis of Carl Schmitt’s ‘political theology’ is of great value: it offers the intellectual tools that are necessary to complete this - possibly greatest - task of the Western patriotic-identitarian movement.

From a Traditionalist perspective, the cultural-historical effects of Liberal Normativism are determined by larger meta-historical dynamic, i.e. the downward time spiral that Hindu Tradition interprets as Kali Yuga and that the Christian Tradition interprets as ‘Latter Days’. The historical agency of Liberal Normativism as a carrier of a contextually functional Wertblindheit is explicitly recognized in Steuckers’ prognosis: ...une ‘révolution’ plus diabolique encore que celle de 1789 remplacera forcément, un jour, les vides béants laissés par la déliquescence libérale ‘...[it is] inevitable that, someday, an even more [openly] demonic revolution than that of 1789 will fill the gaping void that has been caused by the liberal rot.’ (p.37) A first indication of the deeper ‘outer dark’ that still lies hidden beyond the Liberal Normativist facade is found in the recent monster alliance between neo-liberalism and cultural-marxism in Western politics (in Dutch politics this alliance is visible in the program of the governing coalition parties, which combines the ‘disaster capitalist’ agenda of the VVD and the ‘deep nihilist’ agenda of the D66).[21] Steuckers highlights Schmitt’s doubly philosophical and theological interpretation of the regressive cultural-historical tendency of Liberal Normativism. Schmitt draws attention to the consistent Liberal-Normativist support for pre-Indo-European primitivism (Etruscan matriarchy, Pelagianist ‘katagogic’ theology) at the expense of Indo-European civilization (Roman patriarchy, Augustinian ‘anagogic’ theology).[22] Traditionalism associates this tendency with a meta-historical movement towards a ‘neo-matriarchy’: this explains the chronological relation between the Postmodern hegemony of Liberal Normativism and typically Postmodern symptoms such as feminization, xenophilia and oikophobia.[23] In sociological terms, this phenomenology can be accurately described as befitting the development of a ‘dissociative society’.[24] The spectre of an absolute nihilist void is already casting ahead its shadow in Postmodern discourses such as ‘open borders’ (genocide-on-demand), ‘transgenderism’ (depersonalization-on-demand), ‘reproductive freedom’ (abortion-on-demand) and ‘completed life’ (euthanasia-on-demand) - discourses that are straightforwardly demonic in any authentic Tradition.[25]

Leaving aside the natural interethnic (effectively ‘neo-tribal’) conflicts of contemporary ‘multicultural societies’ (conflicting bio-evolutionary strategies, interracial libido trajectories, post-colonial inferiority complexes), the prime trigger of the existential conflict between indigenous Westerners and non-Western immigrants is found in the increasingly diabolical life-world of Liberal-Normativist Western ‘society’. For every traditional Muslim from the Middle East, for every traditional Hindu from South Asia and for every traditional Christian from Africa the Liberal-Normativist ‘open society’ or the Postmodern West not only an abstract (theological) evil but also a lived (experiential) horror. Even if the armed terror of the islamicist jihad is (a tolerated) part of the offensive ‘divide and rule’ strategy of the hostile elite in form, in substance it can also be understood as a defensive mechanism against the blasphemous and dehumanizing experience of life under Liberal-Normativist rule. From a Traditionalist perspective, it could be said that for the Western peoples an Islamic Caliphate would, in fact, represent a (very relatively) ‘better’ alternative to the bestial dehumanization that will logically result from the ‘harrowing of hell’ of fully-implemented Liberal Normativism.

Thus, the greatest enemy of all the Western peoples - in fact, the common enemy of all peoples that still live according to authentic Traditions - is politically identified: totalitarian-nihilist Liberalism. Liberal Normativism is politically realized through Liberalism: the program of the hostile elite is shaped by Liberalism. In this regard, it is important to note the fact that, since the Second World War, Liberalism has gradually gained the status of ‘standard political discourse’. Liberalism has infiltrated, disfigured and transformed its political rivals, including Christian Democracy (the Dutch CDA and CU, which have joined the liberal governing coalition without the slightest compunction), Social Democracy (the Dutch PVDA and SP, which have been marginalized through decades of compromise) and Civil Nationalism (the Dutch PVV and FVD, which have failed to formulate a viable alternative vision of society). This process has advanced to point of eradicating any trace of authentic democratic-parliamentarian opposition in key areas such as economic and social policy. Steuckers views this process of ‘politicide’ as a function of Liberalism’s intrinsic power of ‘ideological sterilization’. Even outside of the core party cartels (in the Netherlands these are represented by standard ‘governing parties’ of VVD, D66, CDA, CU and PVDA) Liberalism has become a political habitus[26] - all other parties automatically (largely unintentionally) take on the role of ‘controlled opposition’. The result is ‘mainstream politics’ (in the Netherlands it is explicitly referred as the all-levelling ‘polder model’), now dominating the entire West since the 1980’s rise of ‘Neo-Liberalism’: the rise to power of Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Ronald Reagan in America and Ruud Lubbers in the Netherlands.

4. Liberalism as Politicide

A ‘democratically elected’ parliament can never be the place for authentic debate:

it is always the place where collectivist absolutism issues its decrees.

- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

The formation of Liberalist-led party cartels and Liberalist-guided consensus politics is largely due to the simple practice of parliamentarism: the parliamentary technique of the hyper-democratically dumbed-down and hyper-regulated unrealistic ‘debate’ reduces all ‘opinions’ and ‘viewpoints’ to their lowest common denominator, which is always found in grossly materialist and totally amoral Liberalism. The all-levelling debate replaces quality with quantity (‘democracy’), thought with feeling (‘humanism’), concrete justice with abstract governance (regulation, bureaucracy, protocol) and collective future planning with individual impulse gratification. ‘Purchasing power’ always outweighs generational legacy, ‘lifestyle’ always prevails over ecological sustainability and ‘relationship experiments’ always have priority over family life. Parliamentarism is nothing but the political and institutional reflection of the collectivist levelling sentiment that underpins bourgeois Liberalism: it represents the reductio ad absurdum of politics - politics as talk show entertainment.[L]’essence du parlementarisme, c’est le débat, la discussion et la publicité. Ce parlementarisme peut s’avérer valable dans les aréopages d’hommes rationnels et lucides, mais plus quand s’y affrontent des partis à idéologies rigides qui prétendent tous détenir la vérité ultime. Le débat n’est alors plus loyal, la finalité des protagonistes n’est plus de découvrir par la discussion, par la confrontation d’opinions et d’expériences diverses, un ‘bien commun’. C’est cela la crise du parlementarisme. La rationalité du système parlementaire est mise en échec par l’irrationalité fondamentale des parties. ‘[T]he essence of parliamentarism is found in debate, discussion and publicity. Such parliamentarism may prove itself an asset in an Aeropagus [assembly][27] of rational and clear-minded gentlemen, but this is no longer the case when rigidly ideological parties are confronting each other with claims of possessing the ultimate truth. The latter debate is no longer loyal: the aim of its participants is no longer the discovery of the ‘higher cause’ through a discussion and an exchange of opinions and experiences. Herein lies [the cause of] the crisis of [comtemporary] parliamentarism. The rationality of the [present] parliamentary system fails due to the fundamental irrationality of the parties.’ (p.18-9)

It is inevitable that this self-reinforcing crisis is increasingly fed by groups that were previously ‘invisible’ in the political landscape. The escalating process of political levelling is fed by the individual ambitions and resentments of the self-appointed ‘representatives’ of supposedly ‘discriminated’ groups. Seek and you shall find: there are always more ‘under-privileged’ groups (to be invented): young people, old people, women, immigrants, homosexuals, transgenders. Totalitarian nihilist Liberalism is the deepest (maximally ‘deconstructed’, maximally ‘desubstantivized’ political sediment - and sentiment - that results from this implosive process: it is the political ‘zero position’ that remains after the all-levelling ‘debate’, i.e. after the neutralization of all attempts at political idealism, political intelligence and political willpower.

Liberalism realizes the political (parliamentarist, partitocratic) dialectics of the Liberal-Normativist ideology. In Schmitt’ view, the dialectically vicious circle that results from this ideology can only be broken by a fundamental restoration of political authority. Steuckers states this as follows: Dans [cette idéologie], aucun ennemi n’existe : évoquer son éventuelle existence relève d’une mentalité paranoïaque ou obsidionale (assimilée à un ‘fascisme’ irréel et fantasmagorique) - ...il n’y a que des partenaires de discussion. Avec qui on organisera des débats, suite auxquels on trouvera immanquablement une solution. Mais si ce partenaire, toujours idéal, venait un jour à refuser tout débat, cessant du même coup d’être idéal. Le choc est alors inévitable. L’élite dominante, constituée de disciples conscients ou inconscients de [cette] idéologie naïve et puérile..., se retrouve sans réponse au défi, comme l’eurocratisme néoliberal ou social-libéral aujourd’hui face à l’[islamisme politique]... De telles élites n’ont plus leur place au-devant de la scène. Elles doivent être remplacées. ‘In [this ideology] a [real] enemy cannot be conceived of: even to suggest the possible existence of such an [enemy] is ‘proof’ of the paranoid or obsessive mentality (always associated with an unreal and imaginary ‘fascism’) - ...there are only ‘debating partners’. With [such partners] debates are organized and these debates always end in a solution. But if, one day, this partner - always thought of in abstract terms of rational perfection - would actually refuse the debate, then the ideal [‘discussion’ model] would immediately fail. An [existential] shock would be inevitable. The ruling elite, which is [entirely] made up of conscious and unconscious adherents to [this utterly] naive and infantile ideology..., would have no answer to this challenge - in the same manner that neoliberal and social-democrat eurocrats [have no answer] to [political islamism]... Such elites do not deserve a place on the [political] stage - they have to be replaced.’ (p.245)

5. Liberalism as Anti-Law and Anti-State

A Marxist system can be recognized by its protection of criminals

and its criminalization of opponents.

- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Sometime during the aftermath of the Machtergreifung of the soixante-huitards the hostile elite has taken the strategic decision to replace the indigenous peoples of the West.[28]Its underlying logic is as clear as it is ruthless. The European peoples have proven to be historically incompatible with Modernity, as it is defined by Culture Nihilism: this is why they have to be mixed with and replaced by more malleable - less intellectual, less demanding, less self-conscious - slave peoples. The European peoples are demographically infertile under totalitarian dictatorship, they are economically unproductive in urban-hedonist stasis and they are politically unreliable in debt slavery.[29] But the ethnic replacement of the Western peoples is a project with considerable risks: even the most optimally calibrated Umvolkung recipe and the most carefully calculated dosage of its various ingredients (mass immigration, ethnically selective natalist policy, affirmative action, native economic deprivation) demand a political balancing act of unparalleled refinement. To achieve the political ‘point of no return’ (the demographically-democratically checkmate of the Western peoples) the hostile elite runs the risk that its amputation-transplantation operation will fail when the double psychological and spiritual anaesthesia fails, causing the patient to awake on the operating table. Until that point is reached, the expiry date of the hostile elite depends on two main anaesthetic medicines: (1) the hedonist-consumerist defined level of ‘wealth’ and ‘wellness’ and (2) the educative-journalistic manipulated politically correct consensus. If one of these two elements fall under a certain critical measure (a measure that is gradually revised downward), the danger of the patient awakening increases exponentially. Thus, a certain minimum remnant (constantly revised downward as well) of the welfare state, labour legislation, political pluriformity and freedom of opinion must be maintained until the process of ethnic replacement has been completed. The neoliberal-globalist ideals of entirely ‘open borders’, of an entirely amoral ‘open society’ and a total social-economic bellum omnium contra omnes can only be fully realized after the ethnic replacement project has reduced the native Western population to the status of ‘endangered species’, confined to marginal ‘reservations’. Until that time, the transition process creates a legal predicament for the hostile elite: it has to carefully manage the maximum speed with which Western state institutions and laws can be demolished and replaced with Liberal anti-state institutions and anti-laws. If this demolition and replacement take place too quickly, the Liberal anti-state risks an uncontrollable backlash: an early overdose of chaos and injustice in the public sphere risks a premature alienation and collective countermovement among the native Western populace.

The increasingly grotesque side-effects of the Liberal demolition of state institutions and legal safeguards are particularly problematic in case of those privileges that are the exclusive preserve of the ‘immigrants’ (‘affirmative action’, ‘preferential treatment’, ‘housing priorities’, ‘targeted subsidies’) and of those sanctions that are explicitly aimed at the natives (student loans, commercial credit and administrative fines for natives vs. scholarships, grants and prosecution dismissal for ‘immigrants’). The contrast between the bureaucratic hurdles, fiscal pressure, labour market congestion and housing shortages faced by the native population (particularly its unfortunates: the homeless, the infirm, the poor) and the red carpet treatment (free legal assistance, free shelter and free money followed by priority housing, start-up facilities and full access to social support) provided to foreign colonists (including masses of fraudsters, thieves and rapists) is becoming more grotesque every year. As the immigrant population explodes due to ‘managed migration’ (‘Marrakesh’),‘family reunification’ (‘human rights’) and ‘child allowances’ (‘legal equality’) - always at the expense by the native population - the hostile elite risks pushing the native population into electoral resistance (‘populist parties’) and civil disobedience (gilets jaunes) too soon and too far. The hostile elite is attempting to abolish the historical gains of 150 years of Western civilization - legal recourse, labour law, social security, educational opportunity, universal healthcare, administrative integrity, responsible governance - in the space of no more than two generations. Here, the generational divide (essentially the divide between baby-boomer and post-baby-boomer) is essential because it is vitally important to ‘clean’ the collective memory of the Western populace: to make sure that inconvenient concepts such as ‘educational standards’, ‘living wage’, ‘income security’, ‘old age insurance’ and ‘justice for all’ are eradicated as quickly as possible. The hostile elite is close to achieving this aim, even if it is not fully ‘in the clear’ yet.

The Liberal anti-state and anti-law of the hostile elite has already basically reduced its hardworking, conscientious and naive indigenous subjects to ‘milk cows’ and ‘slaughter cattle’ to be exploited on behalf of a rapidly increasing mass of ruthless, unproductive, fraudulent and criminal ‘immigrants’. The sickening burden of this colonizing immigration is particularly crushing for the most vulnerable indigenous groups: day labourers, small entrepreneurs, pensioners, the physically and mentally handicapped and single-parent families. The hostile elite is silencing their feeble protests against demographic inundation and social-economic marginalization with mind-twisting and utterly cynical one-liners such ‘multicultural enrichment’ and ‘humanitarian duty’, ‘market forces’ and ‘private responsibility’. In the Dutch context, their situation is best symbolized by a caricature picture that is now frequently becoming reality: the humble indigenous bicyclist who is stopped in the pouring rain by the traffic police to be fined for a defect light, when a few yards away an ‘immigrant’ drugs lord is speeding through the red light in his sports car on the way to launder his ill-gotten riches in the ‘convenient store’ of his family clan.

But worse is yet to come - and many are starting to experience this ‘in the flesh’. Worse is the experience of indigenous girls and women: with the clients of their ‘lover boys’[30] during their school years, with their ‘rapefugee’ stalkers during their college years and with their ‘#metoo’ affirmative action ‘bosses’ during their working lives. And the worst is hidden still: the murderous decolonization (Lari 1953, Algiers 1956, Stanleyville 1964, Kolwezi 1978, Air Rhodesia Flight 827 1979) and the postcolonial atavism (Macías Nguema in Equatorial Guinea 1968-79, Muammar Kaddafi in Libya 1969-2011, Idi Amin in Uganda 1971-79, Pol Pot in Cambodia 1976-79, Saddam Hussein in Iraq 1979-2003) of the Third World bode ill for the future of the remnant native population of the West once it is fully colonized by primitive Africans and resentful Asians. Perversion is already the becoming the standard modality of Western bureaucracies and judiciaries as the indigenous Western peoples are abandoned and left to face terrorism, criminality and persecution without effective recourse. They are left with a toothless police that is caught up in red tape, a matriarchal anti-judiciary that is protecting criminals against victims, a silent media cartel that is hiding the ‘colour of crime’[31] and a perverted political system that prioritizes ‘public perception’ over public responsibility. These collective experiences, however, are now fast accumulating into a critical mass that threatens the whole ethnic replacement: they are, in fact, creating space for an effective collective challenge to the hostile elite. The moral legitimacy of the native resistance is giving it the status of an ‘Authority in the Making’, empowering it to tear up the seemingly inescapable but wholly fraudulent ‘IOU from history’ that the hostile elite is foisting on the Western peoples. The traffic light of history is flashing yellow for Liberalism. The gilets jaunes have already shown the Liberal hostile elite the ‘yellow card of history’: it is now up to the Western peoples to write out its red card - and to transfer it from the political stage to the penalty box of history.

6. The Patriotic-Identitarian Resistance as Authority in the Making[32]

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep:

for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand:

let us therefore cast off the works of darkness,

and let us put on the armour of light.

- Romans 13:11-12

The basis of a successful campaign of Liberal Normativism as an ideological model and of Liberalism as a political force is the realization that both are the mortal enemies of Western civilization. For the Western peoples, the annihilation of Liberalism as a political force is an absolute precondition for a successful reconquista of state sovereignty and ethnic identity. In this case, the absolute right of survival coincides with the ethical imperative of resistance. This ethical imperative applies to all nations with ‘their back against the wall’, as formulated by Marek Edelman, the last leader of the Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa (‘Jewish Combat Organization’): We knew perfectly well that we had no chance of winning. We fought simply not to allow the Germans alone to pick the time and place of our deaths. We knew we were going to die.[33]

In this regard, the Western patriotic-identitarian movement would be well advised to take to heart what Steuckers has to say about the illusion of ‘dialogue’ with the hostile elite. Reasonability and dialogue end - have to end - when one is faced with an existential threat: ...l’ennemi n’est pas bon car il veut ma destruction totale, mon éradication de la surface de la Terre: au mal qu’il représente pour moi, je ne peux, en aucun cas et sous peine de périr, opposer des expressions juridiques ou morales procédant d’une anthropologie optimiste. Je dois être capable de riposter avec la même vigueur. La distinction ami/ennemi apporte donc clarté et honnêteté à tout discours sur le politique. ‘...the enemy simply cannot be good, because he seeks my total destruction [and] my eradication from the face of the Earth: I cannot, when faced with the [absolute] evil that he represents to me, apply the legal and moral prescriptions of [a misguided] anthropological optimism - if I do so, I will become extinct. I must be able to retaliate with equal vigour. Thus, the distinction between friend [and] enemy provides the political discourse with clarity and honesty.’ (p.51)

The hostile elite, which speaks through Liberal Normativism and which acts through Liberalism, has declared war on the Western peoples and on Western civilization: the Western peoples are simply left with no other choice than to fight for their lives and to appoint a newly-legitimate ‘authority in the making’. The weapons with which the Western patriotic-identitarian resistance can deal the intellectual deathblow to the hostile elite can be found in the arsenal of Carl Schmitt - Robert Steuckers’ Sur et autour provides the key to this arsenal. One of the weapons to be found there is Schmitt’s philosophical validation of the restoration of authentic Auctoritas.

7. Decisionism as State Theory

In Gefahr und grosser Noth

Bringt der Mittel-Weg den Tod

[In danger and distress

The middle way leads to death]

- Friedrich von Logau

The weakness of the hostile elite’s pseudo-philosophy of law is ruthlessly exposed in Steuckers’ analysis of Schmitt’s basic notions of the inevitably concrete and personal dimension of all authentic forms of legitimate law and power. The concrete and personal dimensions of law and power are best illustrated in its unavoidable incarnation in the person of the judge: the person of the judge bridges the gap between abstract and historically determined law (legal code, jurisprudence) and the concrete and contemporary reality (event, circumstance). La pratique quotidienne des palais de justice, pratique inévitable, incontournable, contredit l’idéal libéral-normativiste qui rêve que le droit, la norme, s’incarneront tous seuls, sans intermédiaire de chair et de sang. En imaginant, dans l’absolu, que l’on puisse faire l’économie de la personne du juge, on introduit une fiction dans le fonctionnement de la justice, fiction qui croit que sans la subjectivité inévitable du juge, on obtiendra un meilleur droit, plus juste, plus objectif, plus sûr. Mais c’est là une impossibilité pratique. ‘The daily, inevitable and undeniable practice of due legal process contradicts the Liberal-Normativist illusion that laws and norms can [somehow] be realized without a flesh-and-blood intermediary. By imagining an ‘absolute law’ that eliminates the person of the judge, it introduced a legal fiction: a fiction that proposes a better, more just and more objective law without the inevitable subjective [mediation of the] judge. But, [of course,] no such thing is possible in practice.’ (p.5-6) No legal verdict can be conceived of without the physical presence of a Vermittler, i.e. a man of flesh and blood who is - consciously or unconsciously - shaped by values and sentiments. Thus, no legal order can be conceived of without the imprint of the specific (historically and contextually experienced) charisma of the judge. In the Postmodern context, this charisma will tend to be of a collectivist-tainted, resentment-fed and downward-directed negative nature. Parce qu’il y a inévitablement une césure entre la norme et le cas concret, il faut l’intercession d’une personne qui soit une autorité. La loi [et] la norme ne peu[vent] pas s’incarner toute[s] seule[s]. ‘Because there will always be a gap between the [abstract] norm and the concrete [case], mediation by personalized authority is a necessity. [Thus,] the law [and] the norm can never incarnate themsel[ves].’ (p.6) The same concrete and personalized dimension apply with regard to political power: the entirely abstract, institutionalized and bureaucratized form of political power that is wished for, believed in and aimed at my Liberal Normativism is simply impossible. Thus, the inevitable and indispensable incarnation of political authority remains ...le démenti le plus flagrant à cet indécrottable espoir libéralo-progressisto-normativiste de voir advenir un droit, une norme, une loi, une constitution, dans le réel, par la seule force de sa qualité juridique, philosophique, idéelle, etc. ‘...the most definitive argument against the incorrigible liberal-progressivist-normativist hope that it will be possible, one day, to achieve a real-world law, norm [and] order that is solely based on judicial, philosophical and idealist quality.’ (p.6)

Under the aegis of totalitarian Liberal Normativism, however, Postmodern West politics has no longer any space for rational debate and superior argumentation: only ‘might is right’. L’idéologie républicaine ou bourgeoise a voulu dépersonnaliser les mécanismes de la politique. La norme a avancé, au détriment de l‘incarnation du pouvoir. ‘The republican and bourgeois ideology is aimed at the depersonalization of the mechanics of politics. It favours normative power at the expense of personalized power.’ (p.4) The contemporary power of Liberal Normativism is psychosocially anchored in an anti-rational matriarchal conditioning that abolishes all personalized forms of authentic authority in a hyper-collectivist règne de la quantité.[34] Dramatic illustrations of this increasingly oppressive matriarchal reality can be found in the Western European ‘ground zero’ of Postmodernity: in the ex-nation states of ‘Anti-Frankrijk’ en ‘Anti-Germany’ the policies of anti-tradition, anti-nationalism and anti-masculine are now metastasizing into openly sadomasochistic projects of self-mutilating and suicidal Umvolkungà l’outrance. In this context, every form of collectivist resistance (parliamentary ‘opposition’ and extra-parliamentary ‘activism’) against the idiocratic and absurdist excesses of Liberal Normativism is doomed to failure because it will limit itself to pragmatic ‘symptom management’. By limiting themselves to the matriarchal-collectivist (doubly politically-institutional and psycho-social) ‘frame’ of Liberal Normativism, such parliamentary opposition (the AfD in Germany, the FvD in the Netherlands) and such extra-parliamentary activism (the Reichbürger movement in Germany, the gilets jaunes movement in France[35]) are effectively reduced to ‘lightning conductors’. There exists only one true remedy for the matriarchal-collectivist ‘anti-authority’ of Liberal Normativism: patriarchal-personalized authority as defined in Traditionalist Decisionism.

The Decisionist approach to law and politics is always concrete, and therefore also physical and personal. In legal-philosophical terms, it is primarily concerned with the physical protection of the concrete (geographically and biologically bounded) realities of state and ethnicity. In Decisionism, earthly realities always take priority over abstract norms: ist erdhaft und auf Erde bezogen [the law is earth-bound and refers to earthly reality]. In metapolitical terms, it proceeds from the recognized necessity of personalized authority in order to meet physical calamities as well as overdoses of ‘normative’ power. It sanctions personalized authority for the effective management of existential threats against the state and the people: Ausnahmezustand, ‘state of emergency’, Ernstfall, ‘case of emergency’, Grenzfall, ‘borderline case’. This highest command authority is based on the (temporary) suspension (in fact: correction) of (normative) law through its (temporary) personification: this emergency measure is applied whenever the legal order, the power of the state or the survival of the nation are undermined or shaken. ...[E]n cas de normalité, [cet] autorité peut ne pas jouer, mais en cas d’exception, elle doit décider d’agir, de sévir ou de légiférer. ‘...[U]nder normal circumstances, th[is] authority stands outside daily life, but in case of emergency it is obliged to act, to rule and to legislate [directly].’ (p.4) This ‘emergency power’ kicks in case of existential threats from without (natural disaster, enemy invasion) and from within (rebellion, treason). In Traditional societies, this personalized authority is permanently (institutionally) available in the ‘reserve functionality’ of sacred office. In pre-modern Western societies, this reserve functionality is institutionally represented in the Monarchy, regulated either through election or succession. The sacred nature of the highest command authority is derived from the transcendental (and therefore anagogical) concept of state and nation that prevailed in all pre-modern societies. Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law - inspired by the Traditionalist-Catholic state theory of Donoso Cortés[36] - retains this sacred element in its transcendental definition of a holistically conceived unity of state, nation and society. This unit, as qualified through the ancient notions of Unitas Ordinis, ‘Unified Order’, Societas Civiles, ‘Civil Society’ and Corpus Mysticum, ‘Mystical Body’, is taken to represent a creation that is naturally organic as well as divinely ordained - as such it can never be wholly encompassed by any political institution. The man that fate has called upon to defend the life of this mysterious ‘creature’ is held to be imbued with a sacred vocation of the highest order.

From this follows the double theological and legal imperative of a trans-democratic and trans-secular state authority which is simultaneously open in a downward (earthly) and upward (heavenly) direction and which guarantees the historical continuity of the nation(s) that it represents. A built-in permanent Decisionist ‘reserve option’ - a (temporal) ‘dictatorial’ command structure to deal with the Ernstfall - is an indispensable part of this state authority. Within the Traditionalist philosophy of law of the Christian world this reserve option is always ‘framed’ - and limited - by the higher transcendental principle of Caritas, which is explicitly expressed in the key principles of Catholic politics: Community, Solidarity and Subsidiarity. Caritas: the ‘anthropologically pessimistic’ Christian ethical imperative and pious practice of magnanimity with all creatures that need protection and assistance. First and foremost these are those people that are vulnerable, incapacitated or weak-minded - children, women, the poor, the sick, the handicapped and the dying. But these are also the animals and plants that cannot speak up for themselves and that are subject to man’s dominion. Noblesse oblige. In the Traditionalist philosophy of law of the Christian world the Monarchy was the highest natural and legitimate carrier of Decisionistically defined Auctoritas: ...les familles royales, qui incarnent charnellement les Etats dans l’Ancien régime, offrent de successions de monarques, différents sur le plan du caractère et de la formation, permettant une plus grande souplesse que les régimes normatifs et normateurs. Elles permettent la continuité dans l’adaptation et le changement, apportés par les héritiers de la lignée. En ce sens, les monarchies constituent des contrepoids contre le déploiement purement technique de la raison normative, qui fait basculer les Etats dans l’abstraction et apportent, in fine, la dictature. ‘...royal families - which are made to literally embody the state during the [Absolutist] ancien régime - offer a [continuous] succession of [ever new generations of] monarchs differ in character, upbringing and education: they offer a [‘built-in’ and] much greater flexibility than ‘normative’,... [democratically liberal] regimes. In this sense, monarchies offer a counterbalance against the purely ‘technocratic’ rule of normative ‘reason’ that reduces states to legal abstractions and, eventually, to [normative] dictatorships.’ (p.36) In a Monarchy the principle of Subsidiarity postulates an additional and derivative role for other ‘privileged’ institutions as well: the Clergy and the Nobility are called upon to carry many responsibilities - they are burdened with a secondary Decisionist Pflicht zur Tat, or ‘obligation to act’. All of these Traditional institutions were assumed to take on a number of natural and legitimate obligations on the basis of an existential quality that is simply unimaginable under the aegis of Liberal-Normativist modernity - a quality that can best be grasped in a number of concepts of more ‘aristocratically minded’ languages: solemnidad, ‘solemnity’, gravedad, ‘gravity’, Haltung, ‘composure’, Würde, ‘dignity’. In this regard, Steuckers points to the ‘Roman Form’ that is essential to this existential orientation - an orientation that was largely eliminated from the originally Roman-Catholic Church during the 20th Century aggiornamento that is now associated with Second Vatican Council (1962-65).[37] This Roman Form views ...l’homme... comme un être combattant, un être sans cesse préoccupé de limiter le chaos naturel des choses, de donner forme au réel, de maintenir les continuités constructives léguées par l’histoire... ‘man... as a warrior creature, a creature that is waging an incessant struggle against the chaotic state of the natural [world and that is called upon] to give structure to the reality [around himself and] to maintain the constructive continuities that he has inherited from history...’ (p.41)

This Roman Form is deconstructed in the utterly false ‘anthropological optimism’ of Liberal Normativism, which sets ‘self-made’ - cosmologically ‘autonomous’, sinless ‘free’, morally ‘self-determining’ - ‘modern man’ aside from Divine Creation, the Divine Order and Divine Providence. Liberal Normativism does not offer - cannot offer - any alternative for the Roman Form that it has ‘deconstructed’: Liberal Normativism is an exclusively negative ideology that can only thrive on denial, deconstruction and destruction. In political terms, it represents the abdication of Fortitudo, ‘fortitude’, and its replacement with administrative chaos and legal impunity. In economic terms, it represents the abdication of Temperantia, ‘self-restraint’, and its replacement with greedy materialism and unbridled consumerism. In social terms, it represents the abdication of Castitas, ‘chastity’, and its replacement with public feminization and private immorality. In psychological terms, it represents the abdication of Humilitas, ‘humility’, and its replacement with megalomania and narcissism. Thus, in the sense of Carl Schmitt’s politische Theologie, Liberal-Normativism can be interpreted as the political application of theological antinomianism.

8. The Antinomianist Project of the Hostile Elite

errare humanum est, perservare est diabolicum

[to err is human, to persist is diabolic]

Liberal-Normativism is entirely incompatible with any form of positive (eudaemonic, anagogic) - let alone Traditionalist (holistic, Decisionistic) - philosophy of law or concept of state. Its antinomianism - its pretence to be exempt from Divine Order and the Divine Law - places it outside and under and transcendentally inspired form of philosophy and statecraft. In the words of Robert Steuckers: Le normativisme se place en dehors de tout continuum historique puisque la norme, une fois instaurée, est jugée tout à la fois comme un aboutissement final et comme indépassable et, en théorie, le normativisme exclut toute dérogation au fonctionnement posé une fois pour toutes comme ‘normal’, même en cas d’extrême danger pour les choses publiques. ‘Normativism places itself outside all forms of historical continuity because, as soon as it is installed, its norm achieves the status of necessary and unsurpassable finality. Strictly speaking, normativism excludes any kind of exemption from the once-and-for-always established ‘normal’ functionality [of state power], even if the greater good is threatened in an unprecedented manner.’ (p.35) The epistemological and ontological ‘steel cage’ of Liberal Normativism closes with mathematical precision - in its doctrinal perfection, it wholly excludes all corrective possibilities. In this regard, Steuckers designates the legalism of Liberal Normativism as the ultimate arcanum of Western Postmodernity. This pharisaic legalism guarantees the (mentally preventive) ‘deconstruction’ of all authentic visions of a societas perfecta. It literally rules out the Decisionist (pragmatic, flexible, temporary) Auctoritas that is built into every Traditionalist concept of state power and philosophy of law.

In the chapter La décision dans l’oeuvre de Carl Schmitt, ‘The Decision in the Work of Carl Schmitt’, Steuckers provides a precise analysis of Schmitt’s intellectual Werdegang. He points to the remarkable parallelism between Schmitt’s intellectual development and the 20th Century development of the Liberal-Normativist epistemological-ontological ‘steel cage’. The three phases that Steuckers distinguishes in Schmitt’s work and life can be interpreted as three phases in the development of the antinomian project of the hostile elite, i.e. three phases in the construction of the Liberal-Normativist totalitarian dictatorship that is nearing completion under the aegis of Western Postmodernity. Steuckers names each of these three phases after the historical function of the ‘decision-maker’ - the symbolic personification of highest command power - during the phase in question. In the framework of this essay, which aims at a ‘short anatomy of the ideology of the hostile elite’, it is useful to briefly review each of these three ‘decision makers’ according to an improvised - artificial but investigative - ‘timetable’.

(1) The phase of the Beschleuniger, the ‘Accelerator’, which covers the forty years between two symbolically important years in Western history, viz. 1905, marking the first military-political victory of a non-Western over a Western great power (the Russo-Japanese War) and the ‘constitutionalization’ of the last Traditional Western autocracy (First Russian Revolution), and 1945, marking the final military-political victory by late-modern trans-nationalism (Grossraum, American and Soviet superpower) over the classic-modern nation-state (Lebensraum, Axis powers).[38] This phase is characterized by an ‘engineering ideology’ that allows for a technical acceleration of power, in the sense of a chronological break-through as well as a spatial break-out. Here, ‘1905’ expresses a double breaking-point in terms of significant power expansions in technique (submarine exploration, aviation, ether communication, spectrum analysis) as well as cognition (Einstein’s annus mirabilis, the Weber Thesis, de Saussure’s semiotics, Durkheim’s social fact-finding). The technical suppression of the classic-modern nation-state during this phase starts with an acceleration of sea power (1905 marks the launch of the Dreadnought and the start of the Naval Arms Race) and ends with a break-out into literally supra-terrestrial power: the launch of V-2 Wunderwaffe number MW18014 on 20 June 1944 marks the start of the Space Age and the ‘Trinity Test’ of 16 July 1945 marks the start of the Nuclear Age. It is ironic that the pursuit of revolutionary and transformative forms of power was most explicitly incorporated in the ideologies of the geopolitical losers of 20th Century, viz. in Italian Futurism and in German Technical Idealism.[39] In this regard, Steuckers points to the fact that Schmitt’s legal-philosophical analysis of the economically and technologically motivated Beschleuniger can only be properly understood as an expression of the new ‘titanic’ ontology that is incarnated in German Technical Idealism, i.e. the same ‘spectral’ spirituality that inspires technocrats of the Third Reich such as Albert Speer and Wernher von Braun. The German Technical-Idealist aim of transformative Beschleunigung also characterized the parallel philosophical explorations of Martin Heidegger.[40] Here it should be noted that the search for a way out of the dead-end of Western Postmodernity would benefit from a systematic revaluation of the ideal content of German Technical Idealism - such a revaluation would be much more interesting than the endless ruminations over its ideological weight. A revaluation of German Technical Idealism can proceed from its emphasis on a productive (qualitatively measured) rather than a commercial (quantitatively measured) economy and on an explorative rather than a utilitarian science.

(2) The phase of the Aufhalter, the ‘Inhibitor’, which covers the forty years between the Götterdämmerung of German Technical Idealism and the Promethium Sky over Hiroshima[41] from 1945 till 1985. 1985 is not only the year of Carl Schmitt’s death; it is also symbolically significant as the year after George Orwell’s 1984 and as ‘point of no return’ in anthropogenic global warming - it marks the point at which the Postmodern ‘fall into the future’[42] becomes inevitable and at which all ‘inhibitions’ fail. This phase is characterized by a protracted ‘delaying action’ of the (political, social, cultural) traditional institutions of Western civilization against the rising tide of (doubly technical-industrial and psycho-social mobilized) proto-globalism that starts to flood the Western heartland in 1945. During this phase, these traditional institutions (Monarchy, Church, Nobility, Academy) are gradually pushed back in their role as Katechon. As Aufhalter the Katechon represents the ‘shield of civilization’ that surrounds any Traditional society.[43]Le katechon est le dernier pilier d’une société en perdition; il arrête le chaos, en maintient les vecteurs la tête sous l’eau. ‘The katechon is the last pillar of a society in dissolution: it holds back the [forces of] chaos by holding [its] vectors below the surface.’ (p.10) During this phase, the roots of authentic philosophy of law are gradually cut away: its Ortungen (as expressed in Schmitt’s adage Das Recht ist erdhaft und auf die Erde bezogen, ‘the law derives from the Earth and refers back to the earthly realm’) are abolished in a global process of de-naturalization, de-territorialization and de-location. During this phase, the Katechon institutions are no longer able to stop the literally all-mobilizing but teleologically negative process of globalization - they mere retain a residual function as a temporary inhibitor.[44] The political reflection of this cultural-historical process is found in the deliberate globalist demolition of the nation-state: states and ethnicities are stripped of their sovereign rights and authentic identities. The geopolitical force field is increasingly dominated by an all-mobilizing, all-liquefying and border-less thalassocracy: the all-monetarizing ‘sea power’ that gradually expands outwards from its Atlantic-Anglo-Saxon heartland through tides of money and commerce.[45] Globalist fata morgana’s such as ‘universal human rights’, ‘international law’, ‘free market mechanisms’ and ‘open borders’ are raised to the status of ‘norm’ in the political arena. L’horreur moderne, dans cette perspective généalogique du droit, c’est l’abolition de tous les loci, les lieux, les enracinements, les im-brications. Ces dé-localisations, ces Ent-Ortungen, sont dues aux accélérations favorisées parles régimes du XXe siècle, quelle que soit par ailleurs l’idéologie dont ils se réclamaient. ‘The modern horror that finds expression in this genealogy of law is the eradication of all loci - all placements, all roots [and] all enclosures. These ‘displacements’, these Ent-Ortungen, result from the accelerations that are favoured by all 20th Century regimes, irrespective of the [formal] ideological [discourses] that they claim to represent.’ (p.10)

(3) The phase of the Normalisateur, the ‘Normalizer’, approximately coincides with the Postmodern Era. During this phase, the structural inversion of the traditional institutions and values of Western civilization is basically completed. The political-institution and legal-philosophical role of the Katechon, which was previously determined by the positive (anagogic) trajectory of Western civilization is now reversed and replaced by that of the ‘Normalizer’, i.e. by the political-institutional and legal-philosophical ‘anti-christ’ in pursuit of the negative (katagogic) norm of globalist Postmodernity. This is the phase of fully-fledged Liberal Normativism. Steuckers points to the ‘Weimar Standard’ as the ‘factory setting’ of Liberal Normativism: this standard provides, as it were, the ‘sacred’ reference point and the ideal form of secular-bourgeois Liberalism. The thalassocratic ‘New World Order’, enforced by the ‘letter institutions’ (UN, IMF, WEF, EU, NATO), implements this ‘Weimar Standard’ on a global scale, hijacking the technical (digital, virtual) innovations that are now directly linking ‘borderless’ products and services to ‘borderless’ demands and emotions (world wide web, social media, virtual reality). Instability becomes the standard modality in all spheres of life. In the political sphere, ‘open borders’ prevail. In the social sphere, ‘open relations’ prevail. In the psychological sphere, ‘open access’ prevails: relations are reduced to ‘role-playing’, interactions are reduced to narcissist ‘ego communication’ and intimacies are reduced to the ‘pornosphere’. In the cultural sphere, ‘open sources’ prevail: knowledge is reduced to ‘resource management’ and publicity is reduced to ‘(b)log activity’ - Schmitt uses the term Logbücher. The spiritual ‘melt-down’ of Western civilization during this nearly literal new ‘Age of Aquarius’ is a fact. Against this background the role of the ‘Normalizer’ becomes clear. La fluidité de la société actuelle... est devenue une normalité, qui entend conserver ce jeu de dé-normalisation et de re-normalisation en dehors du principe politique et de toute dynamique de territorialisation. Le normalisateur, troisième figure du décideur chez Schmitt, est celui qui doit empêcher que la crise conduirait à un retour du politique, à une re-territorialisation de trop longue durée ou définitive. La normalisateur est donc celui qui prévoit et prévient la crise. ‘The fluidity of society... has [now] become ‘norm’: the [dialectic] process of de-normalization and re-normalization is permanently put beyond the grasp of political power and territoriality. The normalizer, the third avatar of the ‘decision-maker’ in Schmitt[’s work], is appointed to manage all crises in such a way as to prevent any definitive or prolonged return to the [exercise of] political power or re-territorialization. Thus, the normalizer is the one that foresees and prevents such crises.’ (p.14) Effectively, the ‘Normalizer’ is charged with the permanent maintenance of the Liberal-Normativist anti-order: he must prevent the widespread recognition of the Ernstfall and the resulting declaration of a state of emergency. In religious terms, this would be the classical function of the ‘anti-christ’. This ‘Normalizer’ is now incarnated in the hostile elite of the Postmodern West. The functionality of the hostile elite as ‘Normalizer’ explains the extreme forms of its antinomian project: institutional oikophobia, rabid demophobia, politically correct totalitarianism, Orwellian censorship, matriarchal ‘anti-law’, idiocratic anti-education, social deconstruction and ethnic replacement.

9. The Decisionist Alternative

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man,

and brave, and hated and scorned.

When his cause succeeds, the timid join him,

for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

- Mark Twain

An answer to the question of whether or not the fast-growing patriotic-identitarian movement in the heavily battered nation-states of the West is able to politically destroy the globalist New World Order in its old heartland will depend on its meta-political - philosophical, ideological - ability to break out of the ‘frame’ of Postmodernity, which was here identified as the ‘steel cage’ of Liberal-Normativism. Within the limited framework of this essay, extensive consideration of this problem is impossible - all that can be done here is to indicate the approximate direction in which this ability must be sought.

Martin Heidegger already pointed to the profound psycho-social conditioning that follows from the ontological quality of Western Modernity. Liberal Normativism can be defined as the psycho-social reflection of this ontological quality, which Heidegger exposes as embodied in the Modern-Western Gestell, or ‘technical frame’. Jason Jorjani has pointed to the necessity of an explicit re-orientation on the Techne as an autonomous and self-creative force field that determines this Gestell: only a brand-new technical-idealist ‘re-thinking’ of this Techne will provide control over the Gestell. Jorjani has started this process of re-thinking: his Archaeo-Futurist approach encapsulates this Techne and is thus able to break through the epistemological ceiling of historical-materialism. Jorjani’s break-out from historical-materialist discursive dialectics has delivered a fatal blow to the Liberal-Normativist ideology that is based upon these dialectics - but only if and when that break-out is followed up by a ruthless exploitation of its final (political, economic, social, cultural) consequences. In terms of this exploitation, Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law is highly relevant, because it offers a possibility of an Archaeo-Futurist deconstruction of Liberal Normativism in its political and legal guises. It provides a ‘crowbar’ with which to wrench open the political-legal ‘steel cage’ of the Liberal-Normativist anti-state and anti-law. This crowbar is found in Decisionism, as sanctioned by Carl Schmitt’s philosophy of law. Carl Schmitt breaks down the (abstract, deconstructive) discursive dialectics of Liberal Normativism by the (concrete, constructive) Realdialektik of Decisionism. Decisionism recovers the habitus of Ordnungsdenken and it restores the authentic (flexible, pragmatic) counter-norm of the Obrigkeitsstaat. Decisionism offers the patriotic-identitarian movement an Archaeo-Futuristically valid deconstruction of Liberal Normativism.

Steuckers’ reconstruction of Schmitt’s philosophy of law provides the building blocks of a new, Archaeo-Futuristically framed Decisionism as a remedy for Liberal Normativism. An Archaeo-Futuristically determined Decisionism will have to take its cue from the institutional and legal-philosophical Western Tradition: Tout avenir doit être tributaire du passé, être dans sa continuité, participer d’une perpétuation, faute de quoi il ne serait qu’une sinistre farce, un projet éradicateur et, par là même, criminel. ‘Every [vision of the] future must recognize itself as heir of the past and as [carrier of historical] continuity: otherwise, it will be nothing more than a sinister farce, a project of destruction and, therefore, a criminal [enterprise].’ (p.60-1) At the same time, it is important to build in an important caveat: Steuckers points to the need for a pragmatic application of Decisionism, befitting the contemporary reality: ...il y a... deux dangers à éviter, celui de caricaturer la tradition, [comme] éloigné[e] de tout véritable souci du...’ politique politique’, et celui de l’abandonner au profit de maigres schémas normativistes. ‘... two dangers must be avoided: [first,] a caricature of tradition, divorced from an effective concern for... a [always pragmatic] ‘political politics’, and, [second,] an abandonment of tradition in favour of substance-less normativist schemes.’ (p.63) Accordingly, there can be no neo-reactionary return to anachronistic forms of Decisionism: ...les régimes pré-libéraux... étaient plus stables sur le long terme, [m]ais... on ne pourra pas les restaurer sans d’effroyables bains de sang, sans une sorte d’apocalypse. [On] doit dès lors éviter l’enfer sur terre et œuvrer au maintien des stabilités politiques réellement existantes. ‘...the pre-liberal forms of government [that ruled the pre-modern world]... were more stable in the long term, [b]ut... they cannot be restored without a horrific bloodbath [and] a kind of apocalypse. [It] is imperative to avoid hell on earth and to work within the framework of such political stability as can still be found.’ (p.31) Thus, modern Decisionism should avoid anachronistic purism: it should seek organic development.

Key elements of such an organic development can be found in Steuckers’ reconstruction of the historical trajectory of Western Decisionism. Partially secularized, but still transcendentally-inspired aspects of a Decisionism that serves the ‘greater good’ can be found in a series of chronologically sequential but organically related notions that are scattered throughout the history of the Western philosophy of law. These include: the Corpus Mysticum of Francisco Suárez (1548-1617), the volonté générale of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), the élan vital of Henri Bergson[46] (1859-1941), the omul nou of Corneliu Codreanu (1899-1938) and the Reichstheologie of Erich Przywara (1889-1972). These notion transcend all 19th and 20th Century ‘isms’: the transcend fascism (which tends to wrongly view the state as an aim instead of a means), nationalism (which tends to wrongly ascribe an active instead of a passive role to the nation) and parliamentarism (which tends to wrongly prioritize procedures over problem-solving). Thus, there exists an uninterrupted (semi-)Traditionalist continuity that develops alongside - and in constant opposition to - the gradual modernist devolution that has now resulted in the Liberal Normativist New World Order, realized through the (trans-national and informal) potestas indirecta of the hostile elite. This alternative Decisionist continuity offers a guideline for an Archaeo-Futurist deconstruction of Liberal Normativism: it offers an exit from the total Staatsdämmerung of neo-Liberalism and the permanent Ersatz-Revolution of cultural-marxism.

In the peripheral areas of the West, the first signs of a proto-Archaeo-Futurist reaction to Liberal Normativism are already becoming visible: these are the ‘Enlightened Decisionisms’ of Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán and Recep Erdogan, very accurate defined as ‘illiberal’ by the Liberal-Normativist propaganda machine. The Western hostile elite is now scrambling to prevent the spread of this Decisionist reactive movement into the Western heartland, a spread that can already be discerned in phenomena such as ‘Brexit’, ‘Trump’ and ‘M5S’. The hostile elite is opting for a Flucht nach vorn, a ‘flight forward’, by an accelerating of its core strategies: the introduction of totalitarian matriarchy (anti-white ‘multiculturalism’, anti-male ‘transgenderism’, anti-intellectual ‘political correctness’), the fostering of social implosion (‘no-fault divorce’, ‘birth control’, ‘sexual revolution’) and the enforcement of ethnic replacement (‘refugee quotas’, ‘migration pacts’, ‘high-skill migration’).

The success of the Western patriotic-identitarian movement in its struggle with the hostile elite depends not only on an intellectual re-armament through the re-instatement of a Decisionist (meta-)political discourse, but also on the inner re-enactment of a deeper Wehr- und Waffen-Instinkt, or ‘defence and armament instinct’.[47] In this regard, Steuckers emphasizes the importance of traditional Western ethics of the crusader, i.e. the double monastic and knightly archetype of the ‘military Katechon’. There is a direct psycho-historical relation between the Crisis of the Modern West and the abolition of the Western monastic and knightly traditions. Steuckers points to the crucial role of crusader ideal in Western history, which tends to recur in highly stylized forms in heroic figures such as Johann Tserclaes Count von Tilly, commander of the Catholic League from 1610 till 1632, Prince Eugene of Savoy, victorious over the French hereditary enemy at Blenheim (1704) and Oudenaerde (1708) and over the Turkish archenemy at Zenta (1697) and Belgrade (1717). The capacity of the Western patriotic-identitarian movement to mount a credible Decisionist challenge against the Liberal-Normativist hostile elite will also depend on a re-enactment of the Western Wehr- und Waffen-Instinkt. This means the capacity to wage war in all spheres: physical, psychological, intellectual and spiritual. The ‘training’ required to reach a sufficient level of ‘fitness’ will have to start with a therapeutic confrontation with the psycho-historical traumas of the West. Session One: a positive inner re-enactment of the existential attitude that is expressed in - obviously German and Prussian - ‘taboo words’ such as Beharrung, ‘persistence’, Kleinkrieg, ‘guerrilla’, Zermürbung, ‘attrition’, totaler Widerstand, ‘total resistance’, totaler Krieg, ‘total war’. Session Two: a transformative projection of this re-enactment into brand-new ‘catch phrases’ that call for peaceful but effective civic resistance: ‘Take the Hit’ (Jared Taylor) and ‘Great White Strike’ (Frodi Midjord). Session Three: the development of an unwavering commitment through a permanent confrontation with the enemy: inward in what the Islamic Tradition terms al-jihad al-akbar, or ‘Greater Holy War’, and outward in what the Augustinian Tradition terms the bellum justum, or ‘Just War’. The discipline and courage that will result from these exercises will bring the hostile elite to its knees soon enough: the hostile elite maybe malicious - it is also cowardly.

Noch sitzt ihr da oben, ihr feigen Gestalten.

Vom Feinde bezahlt, dem Volke zum Spott.

Doch einst wird wieder Gerechtigkeit walten, dann richtet das Volk.

Dann genade Euch Gott!

[Still you are on top, you cowardly figures,

paid by our enemy, ridiculed by our people.

But one day righteousness will prevail - on you will be judged by our people.

On that day, may God be with you!]

- Theodor Körner

10. The Eurasianist Dimension

à tous les coeurs bien-nés que la patrie est chère

[to all well-born hearts the fatherland is dear]

The struggle against the globalist hostile elite, which is thinking and operating on a planetary scale, demands more than a patriotic-identitarian intervention at the national level within each Western nation-state: it also demands a certain degree of geopolitical coordination at an international level. In this regard, Steuckers’ brilliant ‘update’ of Schmitt’s Land und Meer analysis[48] is highly relevant. Steuckers points to the fact that the approaching apogee globalism - effectively the apogee of Atlanticist-Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy analyzed by Schmitt - is characterized by ‘pyro-politics’, i.e. a compulsive resort to globalist ‘arson’ in all parts of the world that are not directly accessible to sea power-based globalism. Les forces hydropolitique cherchent à détruire par tous les moyens possibles cette terre qui ne cesse de résister. Pour parvenir à cette fin, l’hydropolitique cherchera à provoquer des explosions sur les lambeaux de continent toujours résistants ou même simplement survivants. L’hydropolitique thalassocratique va alors chercher à mobiliser à son profit l’élément Feu comme allié, un Feu qu’elle ne va pas manier directement mais confier à des forces mercenaires, recrutées secrètement dans des pays ou des zones urbaines en déréliction, disposant d’une jeunesse masculine surabondante et sans emplois utiles. Ces forces mercenaires seront en charge des sales boulots de destruction pure, de destruction de tout ce qui ne s’était pas encore laissé submerger. ‘The hydro-political powers are pursuing the destruction of all land[power] that persists in resisting [globalist thalassocracy] with all means at their disposal. To achieve that aim, hydro-politics is seeking to provoke explosions in all remnants of continent[al power] that continue to exist, or simply continue to survive. To this end, thalassocratic hydro-politics is attempting to mobilize the Fire element as an ally - an [element] that it cannot apply directly, but which it entrusts to those mercenary forces that it secretly recruits from the unemployed surplus male youth [found] in [backward] countries and derelict suburbs. These mercenary forces are committed to the ‘dirty work’ of wanton destruction - [to] the destruction of everything that has not yet allowed itself to be submerged [by globalism].’ (p.241)

Steuckers points to Schmitt legal-philosophical validation of a geopolitical vision that offers Europe an alternative to globalist pyro-politics: a European Monroe Doctrine. This alternative finds its legal-philosophical validity in the Decisionist priority of earthly Realpolitik over abstract ‘normative politics’: das Recht ist erdhaft und auf die Erde bezogen, ‘the law derives from the Earth and refers back to the earthly realm’. In the geopolitical vision of Schmitt that has been reconstructed by Steuckers, the atrocious atavism of globalist pyro-politics is directly caused by the philosophical regression that runs parallel to America’s rise as a thalassocratic superpower - the American intervention in the First World War marks the fatal turning point. ...[L]e droit n’existe pas sans territoire et... les civilisations se basent sur une organisation spécifique de l’espace (Raumordnung), d’où découle un jus publicum admis par tous. En Europe, de la fin du Moyen Age jusqu’au début de notre siècle, l’histoire a connu un jus publicum europaeum où l’on admettait que chaque Etat, chaque Nation menaient une guerre juste de son point de vue. Ce respect de l’adversaire et des [motives] qui le poussent à agir humanisera la guerre. Avec Wilson, on assiste à un retour à la discrimination entre les ennemis car l’Amérique s’arroge le droit de mener seule une guerre juste. ‘...[T]here can be no law without territory and... all civilizations base themselves on their own particular Raumordnung, or ‘spatial order’, from which they derive a jus publicum, or ‘public law’, that is recognized by all. From the late Middle Ages till the beginning of the [20th] Century, the history of Europe is determined by a jus publicum europaeum which recognizes the legitimate right of every State and every Nation to wage war, commensurate to its lawful interests. This respect for the enemy and for the motives that cause him to act led to a [relative] ‘humanization’ in [European] warfare. But during [the presidency of Woodrow] Wilson, there is a regression into discrimination between enemies, because [under his leadership] America claims the exclusive right to wage a just war.’ (p.19)

The abstractly normativist philosophy of law that underpins globalist geopolitics and that continues to follow the Wilsonian path can only be deconstructed by a systematic return to concrete legal-philosophical Ortungen, i.e. by literal re-territorializations and the reconstitution of multiple place-bound legal orders. This is the legal-philosophical basis for a viable multipolar geopolitical order - a multipolarity that forms the basis for the Neo-Eurasianist project proposed by Alexander Dugin.[49] Dugin’s work reflects the re-territorialization of the Russian State and Nation after the seventy-year de-territorialization of the trans-national Soviet project. Thus, what Steuckers already predicted in 1985, before Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika, has come true : Quand les Russes cesseront de se laisser gouverner par de vieux idéocrates, ils seront à nouveau eux-mêmes: le peuple théophore, le peuple porteur du sublime. ‘When the Russian stop allowing themselves to be ruled by old ideocrats, they will again be what they were before: the theophoric people, the people that carry the Sublime’. (p.27) The miraculous resurrection of Russia from the ashes of Soviet Communism can inspire the Western peoples: it sets a precedent for their own resurrection from the ashes of Liberal Normativism.

Thus, the basis of a Eurasianist ‘Monroe Doctrine’ that can protect the peoples and civilizations of Eurasia from globalist thalassocracy must be sought in a concrete legal-philosophical Ortung. Si l’Europe a un droit à l’identité, il convient de définir cette identité à la lumière du concret, en rappelant les lourdes concrétudes de l’histoire et sans ressasser ces pseudo-arguments complètement stériles qu’avancent tous les fétichistes adorateurs d’idéaux désincarnés. Parce que l’Europe n’est pas d’abord une idée, belle et abstraite... L’Europe, c’est d’abord une terre, un espace, morcelé en Etats nationaux depuis le XVIIe siècle, balkanisée avant la lettre en son centre géographique depuis ce pré-Yalta que furent les traités de Westphalie conclus en 1648. ‘If Europe has the right to an identity, then it is necessary to define that identity in the light of concrete [reality], recalling the burdensome concrete facts of [its] history without regressing into the entirely vacuous and sterile pseudo-arguments that have been launched by the adoring fetishists of abstract ideas. Because Europe is not a beautiful and abstract idea... Above all, Europe is a territory, a space that has been divided up into nation-states since the 17th Century, and that has been ‘balkanized’ avant la lettre since the proto-Yalta of the Westphalia Treaties signed in 1648.’ (p.25) Accordingly, the Eurasianist project aims at re-territorializations: politically in restored state sovereignty, socially in restored ethnic identity and economically in restored autarky (i.e. a maximum of self-sufficiency in the production of food, energy and industry for each of its regional ‘welfare spheres’). L’économie, par la crise, nous défie et nous accuse d’avoir fait fausse route. La géopolitique nous dicte ses vieux déterminismes que personne ne peut contourner. Il n’y a que nos volontés qui vacillent, qui ne suivent pas l’implacable diktat du réel et de l’histoire. ‘[Chronic] economic crises are challenging us and they prove to us that we have chosen the wrong path. Geopolitics forces us to deal with the older [earth-bound] realities that cannot be overturned by anybody. It is only our will that is [still] lacking: [we should recover our] determination to follow the incontrovertible signposts of [earthly] and historical reality.’ (p.27)

To defeat the globalist hostile elite, the patriotic-identitarian movement of the West must gain insight into the enemy’s mind and motives. In this respect, it has much to gain by simply revisiting the great thinkers of the Western Tradition. It therefore owes a great debt of gratitude to Robert Steuckers for providing updated access to the rich heritage of Carl Schmitt - and for providing the weaponry it needs to destroy the hostile elite.

Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire,

and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work;

and I have created the waster to destroy.

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper;

and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.

[4] On the day of Hitler’s death Schmitt was arrested in Berlin by Red Army troops, but he was released almost immediately after a short interview. Later, he was re-arrested and interned by the Americans as a potential suspect in the Nuremberg Trials. Plettenberg, the place of Schmitt’s birth, residence and death, is located in Westphalia and it was therefore located in the American Zone of Occupation.

[6] A reference to the title of a work by German legal philosopher Walter Leisner.

[7] For convenience sake, the ‘West’ will here be defined as the agglomerate of European nation-states that are historically associated with the Western Roman/Catholic Tradition rather than the Eastern Roman/Orthodox Tradition – in short: Western Europe plus the overseas Anglosphere.

[8] In Classical Antiquity (Greek) Hephaestus (Latin: Vulcan) was the smith of the gods and the guardian divinity of smithery: German Schmitt is English ‘Smith’.

[10] The ‘laconic’ bon mot of Spartan king Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC), where he faced hopeless odds and was summoned by his Persian enemy to put down his weapons - the meaning is a stronger version of ‘Come and take them’.

[11] An oblique reference to the title (and contents) of the main work of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.

[13] An important cultural-historical reflection of this regression may be found in Thomas Hobbes’ mid-17th Century concept of a universally projected (proto-social-darwinist) bellum omnium contra omnes.

[19] For an overview of the most important cultural-historical phenomena that coincide in this ‘superstructure’, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018) 9-12.

[20] A bio- and psycho-social analysis of the cultural-historical effects of Liberal Normativism may be found in the work of German sociologist Arnold Gehlen (1904-76). His structural opposition between (anagogically directed) Zucht and (katagogically directed) Entartung allows for the objectively scientific calculus of the Liberal-Normativist process of de-socialization (social ‘deconstruction’).

[21] The VVD (‘People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy’) is the ex-‘classic liberal’ and now utterly corrupt banksterite-globalist party of PM Mark Rutte; the D66 (‘Democrats [19]66’) is the ex-‘progressive liberal’ and now militantly anti-normative (anti-royalist, anti-national, anti-family, anti-religious) party that was until recently led by Alexander Pechtold, who had to resign after a series of scandals in the public and private sphere.

[22] A theological reference to an early Christian doctrinal controversy that was originally resolved by the recognition of the doctrine of original sin (Augustine 354-430) and the rejection of its denial by Pelagius (360-418).

[25] The spectre of the ultimate totalitarian state, i.e. a life-world in which the entire social and individual sphere is controlled by the state, already provided the central theme of 20th Century dystopian literary classics such as Jevgeny Zamjatin’s My (1924), Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).

[27] A reference to the hill near the Acropolis where the Athenian senate met during Classical Antiquity.

[28] A proto-type strategy of ethnic replacement is found in the political writings of one of the ideological founders of the trans-national project ‘European Union’, Richard Count von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972). The possible existence of an anti-European ethnocidal ‘Kalergi Plan’ to implement his vision is the subject of a controversial conspiracy theory, but that vision itself is as clear as it needs to be: The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. (Praktischer Idealismus p.22-3, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kale... ).

[32] A reference to Carl Schmitt’s legal philosophical analysis of the partisan as ‘authority in the making’ in the context of the popular insurrections led by Mao Tse-Tung in China, Vo Nguyen Giap in Vietnam and Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara in Congo.

[33] On 8 May 1943, Marek Edelman succeeded to the highest command position after the suicide of Mordechai Anielewicz in the bunker of 18 Mila Street. The author had the privilege of speaking to several eye-witnesses of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – he lived near Edelman in the Polish city of Lodz (Edelman was anti-zionist, fought for Poland during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 and thereafter lived in Lodz till his death in 2009).

[35] References to, respectively, the German civil rights movement that denies the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany and the French civil rights movement that demanded the resignation of President Macron.

[36] A reference to the Spanish political philosopher Marquis Donoso Cortés (1809-53).

[38] Chronological terminology according to the scheme of Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018), 390-2 (Early Modernity 1488-1776, Classic Modernity 1776-1920, Late Modernity 1920-1992, Post-Modernity 1992-present).

[39] Cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (2018) 237ff.

[40] A first systematic attempt at resuming the Heideggerian line of exploration, directed at a break-through of the historical-materialist Gestell of Western Modernity and a break-out into the ‘spectral space’ that encapsulates it, is found in the work of Jason Jorjani.

[41] A reference to Jason Jorjani’s ‘magical’ interpretation of the ontological (Atlanticist) transformation of Japan, enacted in the collective experience of nuclear warfare.

[44] Carl Schmitt projected this role on Adolf Hitler as ‘Protector of the Law’ (der Führer schützt das Recht) against the revolutionary power of atavist chaos that was (temporarily) disabled during the Nacht der langen Messern, the ‘Night of the Long Knives’.

Prologue: trois couleurs

A storm of unprecedented magnitude is slowly taking shape on the cultural-historical horizon of the postmodern West: with the approaching climax of the Crisis of the Modern West - more precisely described by Jason Jorjani as the imminent ‘World State of Emergency’ - the prospect of an ‘Archaeo-Futurist Revolution’ is looming large as well.[2] The patriotic-identitarian movement which is currently showing rapid growth throughout the entire Western world may be viewed as the ‘storm bird’ harbinger of this Archaeo-Futurist Revolution.[3] It is important that this movement formulates effective metapolitical strategies in preparation for the imminent social-political bankruptcy of the present (double neo-liberal/cultural-marxist) globalist world order. The oldest metahistorical discourse available to this movement is Traditionalism. The only global geopolitical vision that currently incorporates a substantial element of Traditionalism is Eurasianism. This essay aims at a providing an introduction to the Traditionalist-inspired Neo-Eurasianism that is most succinctly expressed in the work of Russian philosopher and publicist Aleksandr Dugin. In addition, however, this essay aims at pointing out that authentic Traditionalist thinking and writing is also taking place in the Low Countries, even if it tends to be obscured by the politically-correct (self-)censorship of the academic review mill and the system media. This essay is dedicated to the most eminent - and longest-serving - writer of the typically autonomous Traditionalism that thrives in the Low Countries: Robert Steuckers. Recently, he published an encyclopaedic work on the origins, history and current state of European civilization: his triptych Europa constitutes an intellectual tour de force of a depth and width that will be impossible to smother in the politically-correct ‘cover-up’ that is the weapon of choice of (self-)censorious system-publicists. Europa is written in French and has, thus far, not been translated into English; the lamentable decline of French language instruction throughout the West renders it therefore inaccessible to much of its primary target audience: the patriotically-minded and identity-aware intellectual avant garde of young Europe. Throughout the entire Western world, this génération identitaire is preparing for the all-out final battle for its highly endangered heritage: its Western homeland - and Western civilization itself. This essay aims at (somewhat) mitigating this inaccessibility by transmitting to a wider non-francophone audience at least some of the knowledge that Steuckers presents in Europa. In the estimation of the undersigned reviewer, Steuckers’ Europa is a jewel - a small reflection of the Golden Dawn that Traditionalism and Eurasianism look back and forward to. Thus, Belgium - and Brussels - has more to offer than the counterfeit ‘Europe’ of the EU: it also offers the Archaeo-Futurist vision of Robert Steuckers’ Europa. This essay is therefore not only dedicated to Steuckers himself, but also to his country: Belgium.

Although the (French-revolutionary) orientation and (heraldic-traditional) colours of the Belgian flag are historically predictable for anybody acquainted with the unique genesis of the Belgian state, it still is very unusual in one respect. Perhaps its strange - nearly square (13:15) - proportions reflects the historical particularity of Belgium’s geopolitical configuration: effectively, Belgium represents a cultural-historical restgebied, or ‘left over’, that was legally established as a sovereign ‘buffer zone’ for the sake of the early-19th Century ‘balance of power’ compromise between Britain, France and Prussia. Only in terms of its colours can the Belgian flag claim an authentically traditional (i.e. doubly historical and symbolic) pedigree. Between the blood red colour of the land provinces of Luxembourg, Hainaut and Limburg and the sable black colour of the mighty coastal province of Flanders, it shows the gold yellow of the prosperous province of Brabant with its capital Brussels, which has been the administrative seat of pan-European power from pre-modern Burgundian state up to the post-modern European Union. The Belgian red and black have the same heraldic-symbolic charge as the Eurasian red and black: in both, red is the colour of worldly power (Nobility, army) and black is the colour of other-worldly power (Church, clergy). In the holistic vision of Traditionalist Eurasianism, these colours necessarily complement each other: together they represent the intimidating combination of the approaching storm (divinely ordained Deluge) and war (divinely ordained Holy War). Right up to this day, everyone knows that the red-and-black flag represents revolution, even if Social Justice Warrior ideologues fail to recognize the true - back-ward and up-ward - direction of every authentic re-volution (in casu: the Archaeo-Futurist Revolution). Between the Belgium blood red and sable black is found the colour that may be said to be in virtual ‘occultation’ in Eurasianism: the gold yellow that has the heraldic-symbolic charge of the heavenly light and the Golden Dawn - and thus of Traditionalism itself. A tiny ray of that light comes to us from Brabant in Steuckers’ Europa.

(*)The undersigned reviewer has chosen to provide a double presentation of both Steuckers’ original - razorblade sharp and acidly abrasive - French text and an English translation. The reviewer shares the considered opinion of Dutch patriotic publicist Alfred Vierling that the French linguistic culture is quintessentially different from the globally dominant Anglo-Saxon linguistic culture to such a degree that French language skills are indispensable for any Western reader who wishes to claim a balanced worldview. The dramatic general lack of prerequisite French language skills, however, cannot be blamed entirely on young Westerners themselves: this glaring educational hiatus is caused by the long-term and deliberate ‘dumbing down’ strategy of the Western ‘hostile elite’. In the reviewer’s native Netherlands this ‘dumbing down’ program may have accelerated during the ‘slash and burn’ tenure of present Prime Minister Mark Rutte as Undersecretary of (mis-)Education, but it may be traced back all the way to the all-levelling Mammoet Wet legislation of the Beatnik generation. The reviewer has opted to present the reader with Steuckers’ original French text as well as his own somewhat (contextually) approximate English translation - obviously, he is responsible for less successful attempts at translating Steuckers’ ‘biting’ Walloon French into equivalent English expressions. A glossary with extra Steuckerian neologisms is added at the end of the text.

(**)By and large, the division of this essay into ‘question paragraphs’ (with tentative ‘answers’ provided in their motto subtitles) reflects the original organization of Chapter I of Europa Part II (which is the written version of an interview). Some adjustments have been made to allow for a quick grasp of the basic principles of Eurasianism by all interested readers.

What is the cultural-historical role of Eurasianism?

History is written by those who hang heroes

- Robert the Bruce

In introducing Eurasianism it is essential to point to its long durée perspective on Western civilization: Steuckers does this by referring to the prehistoric roots of the European peoples, which may be traced back to the end of the last Ice Age and their oldest territorial cradle between Thuringia and southern Finland. Gradually expanding outward from their oldest ancestral ground, they finally came to dominate the entire Eurasian space between the Atlantic seaboard and the Himalayan barrier. Doubtlessly, the archetypal experience of this prehistoric ‘European Adventure’ - the exploration and exploitation of the immensely varied pristine landscapes that are found between the frozen mists of Scandinavia and the steamy jungles of India - has been a decisive factor in shaping the ‘Faustian’ character of the European peoples, challenging them to bridge all horizons. This self-surpassing instinct - a subtle combination of inspired vision, all-conquering hubris and technical genius - has put an indelible stamp on the archetypes of Western Civilization, from Classic Greek Titans and Argonauts to Late Modern atom-breakers and astronauts. Taming the horse and mastering metal technique allowed the proto-Europeans to militarily control the steppe centre of the Eurasian space around the dawn of written history. Steuckers points to the fact that even at the heyday of the most ancient Indo-European empires - Achaemenid Persia, Alexandrian Macedonia, Maurya India - semi-mythical horse master peoples such as the Scythians and Sarmatians still ruled the Eurasian Steppe. It was along the geopolitical ‘world axis’, which provides a virtually ‘level playing ground’ from Hungary all the way to Manchuria, that the fate of the European peoples was decided at various crucial junctures.

Steuckers points out that the thirteen centuries of European history that followed the end of the Indo-European power monopoly over the Eurasian Steppe – as marked by the rise of Attila’s Hunnic Empire (406-453) - effectively constitute a single and continuous struggle to regain the initiative from the competing Turco-Mongolian peoples that came storming westward out of the eastern steppes. From this perspective, the Hunnic defeat on the Catalaunian Fields (451) does not represent a true European victory, but rather the - thus far - lowest ebb of the European civilization, then pushed back to barely 300 kilometres from the Atlantic coast. It is only in the course of the 16th and 17th Centuries that the Asiatic assault on Europe is finally reversed: the Ottoman threat to the European heartland is only decisively defeated after the naval victory at Lepanto (1571) and the lifting of the second siege of Vienna (1683). In this context, Steuckers points to the vital role that the Cossack cavalry armies played in the subsequent two hundred years’ reconquista of the Eurasian Steppe (archetypically expressed as ‘Rohan’ sweeping the ‘Pelennor Fields’). This great ‘push back’ finally created the ‘bridge of civilization’ that still links the two great civilizational poles of the Eurasian landmass: Europe in the west and China in the east: this bridge of civilization represents the centrepiece of the Eurasian Project.

It is the Early Modern Reconquista of the Eurasian centre that provides the foundation of Classic Modern European global power. The anchor of the global ‘European Imperium’ is found in the Diplomatic Revolution - a.k.a. the renversement des alliances - of 1756 and the subsequent strategic alliance between the great powers of Spain, France, Austria and Russia, controlling the entire Eurasian space between Finisterre and Kamchatka. The Seven Years’ War (1756-63) that follows the Diplomatic Revolution has received the fitting nickname of ‘World War Zero’: it constitutes the first round in the prolonged confrontation between Anglo-Saxon-led ‘thalassocracy’ and (proto-)Eurasianist land power. The catastrophic maritime and colonial defeats of France resulted in the loss of nearly all French possessions in North America and South Asia: this is the geopolitical foundation of the Anglo-Saxon ‘sea power’ hegemony that persists till today. Abstractly, Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy represents sea power-based Western Modernity, whereas the Eurasian continental monarchies represent land power-based Western Tradition. This civilizational divide represents the - quintessentially Traditionalist - centrepiece of Eurasian thought.

The French Revolution - ironically directly caused by the French state bankruptcy that followed the French naval revenge on Britain during the American Revolution (1775-83) - marks the point at which thalassocratic Modernity manages to create a substantial ‘bridgehead’ on the European continent. As a focal point of revolutionary upheaval and anti-Eurasianist geopolitics, France subsequently functions as a continental ‘wedge’ for the forces of thalassocratic Modernity all throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries.[4] The post-Napoleonic restoration of the Traditionalist Bourbons and the creation of the (proto-)Eurasianist Holy Alliance (1815) do not fundamentally alter this equation: in 1830 France relapses into revolutionary policies - by that time the Holy Alliance had already proven itself to be a ‘paper tiger’ by its failure to stem the revolutionary tide both inside and outside Europe. By then, nearly the entire New World has been lost to freemasonic liberalism, which shielded the Americas from Eurasianist intervention by the Monroe Doctrine. Slowly but steadily, the global balance of power shifted in favour of Atlanticist thalassocracy as it crept into the European heartland through escalating revolutionary contagion. In this context, Steuckers correctly points to the crucial significance of the Anglo-French rapprochement: in his view, the Crimean War (1853-56) marks the point at which the Eurasian space west of the Rhine is irretrievably lost. Some years later, Bismarck’s resurrected (Second) German Empire takes over the role as Eurasian ‘border guard’ that has been abandoned by France as it sinks into republican decadence. Germany’s Wacht am Rhein as guardian of the European Tradition begins. But as the Second Industrial Revolution combines with Modern Imperialism to create an irresistibly rising global règne de la quantité, the decline of Traditionalist Eurasia is a foregone conclusion. The global strategic weakness of Eurasia is most clearly illustrated by the loss of Eurasia’s last outposts in the New World (the Russian sale of Alaska in 1867 and the Spanish defeat in the Caribbean in 1898) and by the failure of mighty Germany to obtain an equitable Platz an der Sonne. After its defeat in the Naval Arms Race in 1912, Germany is forced to switch from an offensive Weltpolitik to a defensive Mitteleuropapolitik: it now faces a fatal Einkreisung by an infinitely superior alliance of thalassocratic Britain and republican France plus financially-manipulated and revolutionary-infected Russia. Historically, the inevitable defeat of Germany as the champion of the European Tradition is the result of a carefully plotted ‘ambush’. The pillars of Traditionalist Eurasia are overthrown by the Versailles’ Diktat, the fire sale of the Hapsburg Empire and the establishment of the Bolshevik terror regime in the ashes of Russia. The first version of the thalassocratic-globalist ‘New World Order’ is now in place, as symbolized by the double institutions of the League of Nations in the West and the Comintern in the East (established 1919/20). The 1937-45 ‘Axis’ revolt against this New World Order, a.k.a. the ‘Second World War’, is even more hopelessly senseless than Germany’s unequal ‘war against the world’ of 1914-18. After the final destruction of the European Tradition and the European great powers during the 1940’s (France loses its great power status in 1940, Italy in 1943, Germany in 1945 and Britain - with its Indian Empire - in 1947), the mantle of Eurasian champion devolves on an eminently unlikely candidate: Stalin’s new ‘national-communist’ Russia. The thalassocratic war on this new Eurasian citadel takes on the form of a prolonged global siege: the ‘Cold War’. Exhausted and bankrupted by this four decennia long unequal struggle against the infinitely superior resources of global thalassocracy, the Soviet Union finally collapses in 1991. Francis Fukuyama can announce the ‘End of History’ and George Bush Sr. can announce the ‘New World Order’: ‘Globalia’, the borderless ‘world state’ of unlimited ‘high finance’ power and universalist ‘culture nihilism’, is born.

Steuckers points to the ideological and propagandist ‘thin red line’ that can be traced through the victorious campaign of Modernist thalassocracy against Traditionalist Eurasia: the recurring theme of the leyendanegra against the ‘losers of history’. Modern history is written by ‘those who hang heroes’: when, in 1588, Catholic Spain loses its war against Protestant England (and again, in 1648, against Protestant Holland), it is immediately stigmatized as a defeated ‘Anti-Christ’ - this is the beginning of the teleological propaganda machine of ‘Whig History’.[5] When, in 1918, ‘militarist’ Germany loses its war against the ‘peace-loving’ Entente, it is immediately burdened with ‘war guilt’ clauses.[6] When, 1991, ‘unfree’ Soviet Russia loses its Cold War against the ‘Free West’, it is permanently branded as the ‘Evil Empire’.[7] The Lügenpresse of the postmodern West continues to spin the same ‘thin red line’ of propaganda policy in the contemporary geopolitical debate as it seeks to paint all remaining non-globalist international power centres with the same leyenda negra brush. When Russia’s Vladimir Putin resists globalism and culture nihilism, he is portrayed as a bloodstained ‘anti-democratic’ tyrant. When Hungary’s Viktor Orbán’s attempts to preserve a semblance of state sovereignty and ethnic cohesion for his nation, he is portrayed as an ‘illiberal’ anti-Semite. When Turkey’s Recep Erdogan reclaims Turkey’s traditional value-system and regional power status, he is portrayed as a ‘crypto-islamist’ dictator. In the same manner, all organizations and persons that resist transnational totalitarianism and ethnic replacement in the ex-‘Free West’ are systematically portrayed as ‘populist’, ‘chauvinist’ and ‘racist’. In Steuckers’ view, effective measures against indoctrination through this ‘fake history’ and ‘fake news’ mind-control strategy should have the highest possible priority within the Eurasianist movement: Il conviendrait donc de réfléchir à annuler les effets de toutes les leyendas negras, par des efforts coordonnés, à l’échelle globale, dans tous les états européens, en Iran, au sein de toutes les puissances du BRICS (p.6). [Thus, it is appropriate to give serious thought to the cancellation of the effects of all the leyendas negras through a concerted effort at a global level, for all European states as well as for Iran and all of the BRICS powers.][8]

Steuckers predicates the future of Eurasianism - more exactly the Neo-Eurasianism that is focussed on the resurrected Russian state now led by Vladimir Putin - on a possible revival of the strategic alliances that existed in the pre-1914 world: L’eurasisme, à mon sens, doit être la reprise actualisée de l’alliance autro-franco-russe du XVIIIe siècle, de la Sainte-Alliance et de l’Union des Trois Empereurs, voire une résurrection des projets d’alliance franco-germano-austro-russe... avant 1914 (p.6). [In my view, Eurasianism should be focussed on the re-actualization of projects such as the 18th Century Austro-Franco-Russian alliance, the Holy Alliance and the Three Emperors’ League or one of the many Franco-German-Austro-Russian alliance proposals that were made... before 1914.].

What is the meaning of ‘ethnicity’ within Eurasianist thought?

Nullus enim locus sine genio est

- Servius

The Traditionalist ‘hue’ of Eurasianist thought is clearly evident in its non-biodeterministic view of the categories ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’: in Eurasianism both are interpreted as predetermined - and therefore non-negotiable - bio-evolutionary constructs of a doubly biological (physical, phenotypic) and cultural (social, psychological) nature. From this perspective, every ‘nation’ constitutes a unique historical combination of physical, psychological and spiritual particularities that is expressed in various manners. These particularities include a specific ‘phenotypic bandwidth’, a specific ‘tone signal’, a specific ‘worldly footprint’ and a specific ‘transcendental niche’; in cultural history they are known as, respectively, ‘race’, ‘language’, ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ - together they may be used to ‘triangulate’ the elusive phenomenon of ‘ethnicity’ and to describe the subjective existential condition of being a ‘people’. From this perspective, ‘scientific racism’ is a contradictio in terminis: an absolutely objective ‘evolutionary measurement’ is impossible to achieve because each people is adapted to its unique biotope in a unique manner. At most, relative measurements (ranging from pre-scientific skull and nose measurements to highly scientific IQ and DNA measurements) can hope to achieve a functional description of specific bio-evolutionary adaptations: absolute standards of ‘human quality’ cannot be derived from such a description. Elements of the Traditionalist worldview that feeds the Eurasianist vision of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ may be traced back to Johann Herder (e.g. ‘idealist nationalism’) and Julius Evola (e.g. ‘spiritual race’). That being said, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the Traditionalist ‘hue’ of Eurasianism is clearly essentialist: Eurasianism aims for the preservation of holistically-defined ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ because it recognizes the intrinsic existential value of every unique element within humanity as a whole - in this sense it is diametrically opposed to the constructivist ideologies of Modernity (liberalism, socialism, communism).[9] Given this aim - which may be viewed as applying the principles of ‘environmental conservation’ to human (bio)diversity’ - Eurasianism is bound to reject interference in the state sovereignty, cultural identity and territorial integrity of the indigenous peoples found within the Eurasian ‘biotope’. Steuckers expresses this stance as follows: Mon concept d’Eurasie est synonyme d’une confédération solidaire de peuples de souche européenne qui devront, éventuellement, occuper des territoires où vivent d’autres peoples, pour des raisons essentiellement stratégiques. ...La vision ethno-différentialiste postule que les peuples non européens ne soient pas obligés de singer les Européens, de modifier leurs substrats naturels, que ce soit par fusion, par mixage ou par aliénation culturelle (p.7-8). [My concept of Eurasia is a confederative solidarity pact between all people of European descent, where necessary expanded to the occupation of territory inhabited by other peoples for reasons of vital strategic security. ...The ethno-differentialist vision[10] stipulates that the non-European peoples should not be forced into ‘aping’ the European peoples, or to modify their natural substrate through fusion, admixture or cultural alienation.]

The ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ aspect of Neo-Eurasianism is strictly limited to the (re-)creation of cultural-historical ‘breathing space’ for all indigenous peoples within the Eurasian space. In this regard, Steuckers points out four basic strategic principles: (1) The need to come up with a wide definition of the term ‘European’, which can include as the entire (white, ‘Caucasian’) ethnic conglomerate that can be linguistically defined as Indo-European, Finno-Ugrian, Basque and (North, South and East) Caucasian. (2) The need for a pragmatic incorporation of the indigenous Uralo-Altaic (e.g. Turcophone) peoples within a shared ‘European Home’ on the basis of voluntary ethnic segregation and limited territorial autonomy. (3) The need to create a loose institutional framework for peaceful co-existence with the four other great civilizational poles that are directly adjacent to the (Christian) Eurasian civilizational pole: (Zoroastrian) Iran, (Hinduist) India, (Confucian) China and (Shinto) Japan. It is in the natural interest of the Eurasian heartland that the civilizational expansion of these other four autonomous poles is streamlined into a north-south direction. Thus, Iran has a natural civilizational ‘mission’ across the entire Middle East, India across the entire South Asian sphere, China across entire South-East Asia and Japan across the entire Asian ‘Pacific Rim’. (4) The need for a pragmatic geopolitical alliance with all overseas peoples of European descent, especially with the overseas Anglosphere and the post-globalist United States. Such an alliance can be based on the ‘corrected’ Amer-Eurasianist Realpolitik proposed by the older Zbigniew Brzezinski and on the Archeo-Futurist ‘boreal alliance’ vision of Guillaume Faye.

Steuckers goes on to explicitly name the main opponents of the Neo-Eurasian Project: these are the various virulent forms of hyper-universalist globalism and missionary primitivism that are rooted in the psycho-historical ‘Dark Age’ regression of (Post-)Modernity. The radical-constructivist illusions that are rooted in the historical materialism of the ‘Enlightenment’ and the all-levelling barbarisms that are rooted in reactionary neo-primitivism constitute a mortal danger to all those forms of authentic collective identity that fall under the protective umbrella of Neo-Eurasianism: religion, culture, language and ethnicity. Steucker identifies missionary neo-liberalism (socio-economic atavism based on post-protestant hyper-individualism focussed on American power) and missionary islamism (socio-economic regression based on post-islamic hyper-collectivism focussed on Saudi power) as the most deadly threats. In Steuckers’ view, it is no coincidence that these two ‘missionary’ ideologies have concluded a strategic (geopolitical) alliance. But, for the first time in a generation, stress fractures are starting to appear in the double neoliberal-islamist (‘American-Saudi’) New World Order. The tentative program that is being put forward by Donald Trump’s éminence grise, Steve Bannon, point to a re-evaluation of America’s strategy of global hegemony - a re-evaluation that is prompted by the simple calculus of America’s ‘imperial overstretch’ and China’s ‘economic miracle’. In fact, Bannon’s program can be typified as broadly aligned with Steuckers’ evaluation of the effective ideological bankruptcy of American globalism: ...[I]l faudrait que l’Amérique du Nord revienne à une pensée aristotélicienne, renaissanciste, débarrassée de tous les résidus de ce puritanisme échevelé, de cette pseudo-théologie fanatique où aucun esprit d’équilibre, de pondération et d’harmonie ne souffle, pour envisager une alliance avec les puissances du Vieux Monde (p.9). [It is necessary for Nord America to return to an Aristotelian and Renaissancist worldview cleansed from all remnants of confused puritanism - the pseudo-theological fanaticism that stifles the spirit of equilibrium, mindfulness and harmony - so that it can again conceive of an alliance with the powers of the Old World.]

What is the meaning of ‘nationalism’ within Eurasianist thought?

‘The Empire Strikes Back’

Because Eurasianism not only aims at a maximum degree of sovereignty for all European peoples but also recognizes the need for a shared defence mechanism, it needs to define the precise role and function of the many different kinds of nationalism that exist next to - and against - each other within the contemporary ‘Europe of the Nations’. In this regard, Steuckers distinguishes between two diametrically opposed visions of ‘Europe’: the ‘hard’ traditional vision and the ‘soft’ modern vision. Because the ‘hard’ Tradition-inspired vision has been removed from the lived European experience for so long now - to the extent that it has even faded from the collective memory - it is important to introduce Steuckers’ analysis of the nationalist ‘Europe of the Nations’ by a short reminder of the Traditionalist vision of supra-national (i.e. natural ‘over-national’) authority. It is important to distinguish this vision from the modern reality of trans-national (i.e. artificial ‘anti-national’) forms of authority, as exemplified by the globalist ‘letter institutions’ (UN, IMF, NATO, EU etc.).

From a Traditionalist perspective, the only form of supra-national authority that is truly legitimate rests on what Carl Schmitt termed the Ernstfall, viz. the transcendentally-sanctioned Auctoritas and the charismatically-sanctioned power of Imperium that are based on a collectively recognized and collectively life-threatening clear and present danger.[11] For the Eurasianist Project this concretely means that there exists only one kind of supra-national authority that is truly legitimate and that can (temporarily) exceed that of the sovereign institutions if the European peoples, viz. the ‘emergency power’ to ward off a physical assault on the Eurasian space as a whole - and even this ‘emergency power’ can only be properly exercised if it adheres to the principle of subsidiarity to a maximum degree. In this regard, Schmitt points to the core functionality of the Traditionalist authority of the Katechon: Biblical eschatology explicitly points to the Katechon as the transcendentally legitimate ‘keeper’ of the Christendom - and thus of the entire Christian-European Tradition. From a Traditionalist perspective, every other form of trans-national ‘authority’ - whether inspired by nationalist hegemony (Napoleonic-French Europe, Hitlerian-German Europe) or by historically-materialist ideology (‘Soviet Union’, ‘European Union’) - is illegitimate. The approaching nadir of the Crisis of the Modern West, characterized by the converging emergencies of ethnic replacement, anthropogenic climate change, trans-humanist ‘technocalyps’ and hyper-matriarchal social implosion, necessitates an urgent collective recourse to the Auctoritas van de Katechon. Most urgent is the need for a common defence and counteroffensive against the barbarian invasion and colonization of Western Europe and the overseas Anglosphere: the urgent need to effectively combat the ‘mass immigration’ project that is foisted on the European peoples by globalist ideologues justifies the appointment of a new worldly Katechon as a new ‘border guard’ for the European Tradition.[12]Faute de mieux Neo-Eurasianism regards Russia, which has recently risen from the ashes of seventy years of Bolshevism and ten years of globalism, as a possible Last Katechon. Within Russia, there are signs of a socio-cultural development that point to gradual realization of this possibility: the restoration of Russian state sovereignty under Vladimir Putin, the resurrection of the Russian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Kirill and the coherent formulation of an alternative metapolitical discourse under Aleksandr Dugin. Increasingly, the anagogic direction of these developments stands in an evermore shrill contrast to the ‘katagogic’ direction of the socio-cultural development in the ‘West’ (defined as the European ‘Atlantic Rim’ plus the overseas Anglosphere).

Almost immediately after the fall of the communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe (the Soviet Union abolished itself in 1991), a globalist dictatorship was introduced in Western Europe (the European Union was established in 1992): the ‘Eastern Bloc’ was replaced by a ‘Western Bloc’. This new Western Block, characterized by an extreme anti-traditional ideology and a matriarchic-xenophile culture in which all forms of authentic authority and identity are being dissolved as in acid, is now threatening the physical survival of the European peoples in a much more direct manner than the old Eastern Bloc ever did. Whereas the Eastern Bloc insisted, at least theoretically, on an ‘anagogic’ supersession of European nationalism and on a balanced ‘brotherhood’ of separate nations, the Western Bloc insists on a physical deconstruction of the European peoples by means of anti-natalism (through social implosion) and ethnic replacement (through mass immigration). The ex-Eastern Bloc states of Central Europe that were absorbed into the Western Bloc after 2004 now recognize this difference - this is the deeper cause of the militant resistance of the Visegrad states against the Brussels Diktat of ‘open borders’. It is ironic, however, that European ‘narrow nationalism’ is actually assisting the Brussels bureaucracy in the implementation of its anti-European policy: short-sighted and artificially magnified ‘neo-nationalist’ conflicts of interest between the European peoples are distracting them from their much more substantial common interest, viz. the preservation of Western civilization. Examples of such artificial ‘conflicts’ are the north-south divide after the ‘European Sovereign Debt Crisis’ of 2010, the west-east divide after the Russian absorption of the Crimea in 2014 and the continental-insular divide after the ‘Brexit’ of 2016. In these instances, ‘narrow nationalist’ divisions are actually ‘engineered’ - and ruthlessly exploited by media propaganda - in the artificial setting of a carefully disguised but all-out globalist offensive against the greater conglomerate of all European nation-states and all European peoples together.

Recent ‘separatist’ tendencies within existing European states (the secession of Kosovo in 2008, the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, the Catalan ‘declaration of independence’ of 2017) illustrate the acute contemporary relevance of ‘narrow nationalism’. The double burden of anachronistic international jurisprudence (‘Westphalia’: undifferentiated state sovereignty) and anachronistic territorial boundaries (‘Versailles’: arbitrary state borders) reinforces a political drift towards the ‘lowest ethnic denominator’. Steuckers points to the effect of the globalist strategy of divide et impera that operates by strengthening the modern ‘soft vision’ at the expense of the traditional ‘hard vision’ of European geopolitics. He traces the historical origins of the ‘soft vision’ to the threshold of the Modern Age, pointing out the fact that Francis I of France (r. 1515-47) was the first to obtain a modern (absolutist) sovereignty at the expense of the traditional (supra-national) higher authority of the Roman-German emperor, in casu Charles V (r 1519-56) - he was also the first European monarch to betray Europe by a non-European (Ottoman) alliance. The escalating geopolitical ‘balkanization’ of Europe - formally institutionalized in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - had the double effect of negating all forms of traditionally legitimate supra-national authority as well as fostering both modern-illegitimate forms of trans-national power and non-European interventions. It encourages ‘narrow nationalist’ conflicts within Europe and it deprives Europe as a whole of a shared defence mechanism: it makes Europe weak. The hard vision, based on subsidiary (layered, delegated) sovereignty finally vanishes from European Realpolitik with the collapse of its last Katechon institutions at the end of World War I (the West Roman Katechon abstractly represented by the Hapsburg Imperium and the East Roman Katechon abstractly represented by the Romanov Imperium). From that point onwards, the process of political ‘devolution’ towards ever smaller ‘nation-states’ becomes irreversible - it reaches its climax in the melt-down of some of the artificial multi-ethnic states that were ‘frozen’ during the Cold War (the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia). Thus, Europe is presently divided in over fifty - partially unrecognized - states and microstates and its centrifugal tendencies remain as strong as ever. The re-introduction of the hard vision of European geopolitics is an absolute precondition for overcoming futile and enervating ‘narrow nationalism’, for combating globalist divide-and-rule strategies and for saving the European peoples from the physical and psychological Götterdämmerung of Umvolkung (ethnic replacement) and Entfremdung (sociocultural loss of identity).

What is the Eurasianist alternative for ‘Globalia’?

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

- Cato Maior

To properly answer the question that heads this paragraph, a basic understanding is required of the geopolitical goals of the globalist ‘hostile elite’. To this end, Steuckers offers a helpful analysis of the most extreme representatives of the globalist ‘New World Order’ project: the ‘Neocons’ who hijacked American foreign policy in the wake of the ‘9/11’ coup d’état. Steuckers describes them as ‘reinvented trotskyists’ who are applying the principle of ‘permanent revolution’ on a global scale to maintain the ‘unipolar’ hegemony of the American superpower as a useful political and military ‘watchdog’ for their true master: the informal globalist bankers regime. There do exist, in fact, direct personal and ideological overlaps between the early-21st Century nihilist Neocons and the late-20th Century trotskyist ‘New York Intellectuals’: as early as 2006 Francis Fukuyama pointed out the fact that Neocon ideology is dedicated to the leninist-trotskyist principle of ‘accelerating history’ by the ruthless application of brute force and calculated crime. The unipolar geopolitical strategy of the Neocons is characterized by a deliberate use of every conceivable means of ‘trick and terror’ to achieve the destabilization of all other (potential) power poles across the globe. American superpower may not be sufficiently strong to directly ‘rule the world’, but it provides a perfect instrument to degrade all other power poles by means of a carefully calibrated combination of economic manipulation, political subversion and military intervention. Thus, ‘Shock Doctrine Disaster Capitalism’ is the Neocons’ weapon of choice for achieving a worldwide consumerist culture (‘McWorld’) and a global labour division (‘free trade flat world’). Similarly, ‘Flower/Colour Revolution’ (‘soft power’ and ‘black ops’ socio-political subversion) is their standard weapon for introducing corrupt - and therefore easily manipulated - ‘democratic’ practices in recalcitrant states (e.g. Georgia’s ‘Rose Revolution’ of 2003, Ukraine’s ‘Orange Revolution’ of 2004 and Egypt’s ‘Lotus Revolution’ of 2011). Finally, ‘Regime Change’ is their weapon of last resort for the forcible removal of hopelessly delinquent ‘dictators’ (e.g. Manuel Noriega 1989, Saddam Hussayn 2003, Muammar Ghadaffi 2011).

Even if the most visible application of the Neocon arsenal takes place outside of the West and outside of the Western-allied world (flexibly defined as an malleable Orwellian ‘International Community’), the strategy of the Neocon trotskyists vis-à-vis Europe is basically the same. In this regard, Steuckers points to the crucial role of Germany: to maintain their New World Order it is vitally important for the Neocons to control and restrain Europe’s geographically, demographically and economically dominant nation-state. The military destruction of the Third Reich was followed by permanent military occupation, systematic ‘denazification’, pacifist indoctrination and permanent tributary status (Wiedergutmachung, Euro monetary union, ‘development aid’). The Neocons ...considèrent l’Europe comme un espace neutralisée, gouverné par des pitres sans envergure, un espace émasculé que l’on peut piller à mieux mieux... (p.14) [...regard Europe as a neutralized space, nominally ruled by clown without any real authority, a castrated region that can be plundered at will]. But still, there remains a ‘German danger’ in the heart of Europe: despite its slavish economic tribute, its humble foreign policy and its subservient political correctness, Germany remains a permanent potential threat to the Neocons’ unipolar globalism due to its unmatched economic productivity, its remarkable social cohesion and its indomitable intellectual tradition. Neither the stupendous cost of the Wiedervereinigung, nor the monstrous expense of the Euro, nor the colossal weight of the ‘Eurozone Crisis’ has been able to substantially slow down Germany’s socio-economic powerhouse. It is with this reality in mind that the globalist strategy of Umvolkung can be understood: only the physical replacement of the German people offers a realistic ‘hope’ for the permanent elimination of the ‘German danger’. The fact that this program of wholesale ethnic replacement - historically unprecedented in scale - is conceivable at all can only be properly understood against the specific background of the deep psycho-historical trauma and the decades’ long politically correct preconditioning of Germany. The contemporary reality of the physical violation of Germany - presently realized through taḥarruš jamā‘ī en jihād bi-ssayf (systematic rape en ritual slaughter) - can only be truly understood in view of its preceding psychological violation.[13]

The systematic globalist strategy of Deutschland ad acta legen[14] provides an eerie reminder of Rome’s long-term strategy vis-à-vis its archenemy Carthage: it is useful for contemporary Europeans who have sunk into urban-hedonist stasis to recall this lesson of history and to revisit the harsh power political mechanisms that determine the course of human history. Similar to Carthage after the First Punic War (264-241 BC), Germany was subjected to grotesque territorial amputation and top-heavy reparation payments after the First World War - in both cases this pressure led to international weakness and domestic strife (loss of naval power, diplomatic prestige and political stability). In both cases, the crisis that followed defeat finally caused a remarkable ‘nationalist’ rebirth: in Carthage, this took the form of the ‘Barcid Empire’ and in Germany, this took the form of the Third Reich. In both cases, this rebirth led to a renewed confrontation with the implacably envious archenemy. Similar to how Rome found a spurious but convenient casus belli against Carthage in ‘Saguntum’, Britain and France proceeded against Germany on the basis of ‘Danzig’. Similar to the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), the Second World War represents the dramatic height of a deeply existential confrontation in which the loser was inevitably consigned to historiographical hell, representing an archetypal and semi-metaphysical ‘Absolute Evil’. Carthaginian war leader Hannibal Barca shook Rome’s existential foundations and, thus, Roman thinkers such as Livy and Cicero had to describe him as the most monstrous threat that Roman civilization had ever faced: to them, Hannibal was the reincarnation of barbarian cruelty and the demonic abyss. Similar to how the Latin proverb Hannibal ante portas came to express Rome’s existential fears, the name of German war leader Adolf Hitler came to express the existential Angst of the post-war Western world (reductio ad hitlerem...). Similar to the Second Punic War, the Second World War ended with even greater territorial amputations and even more monstrous reparation payments. Similar to Carthage after the Second Punic War, Germany came under direct military, political and economic tutelage of the victors of the Second World War: to them, Germany’s vassal status constitutes a permanent ‘right of conquest’. In both cases, the victor regards the defeated archenemy as a permanent source of tribute, entitled to no more than a limited degree of domestic autonomy - to the victor, the defeated archenemy can never be allowed to rise to full equality again. Even so, to the victor, the combined physical survival and socio-economic resilience of the defeated enemy represents a latent but permanent source of fear and insecurity. This explains Rome’s policy of grotesque interference in the internal affairs of the Carthaginian rump-state in the aftermath of the Second Punic War - a phenomenon that is eerily reflected in the systematic globalist policy vis-à-vis the German rump-state since the Second World War. In both cases the natural resources, the high productivity and the cultural other-ness of the defeated enemy remain a constant source of ambition, envy and fear: ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam is the dominant sentiment. Similar to how independent Carthage had to die for Roman world power to live, Germany has to disappear for globalist world power to become permanent. And so, finally, after having exploited, manipulated and deceived Carthage to the utmost - to the point of forcing it to hand over it best arms and best people - Rome drops its mask: it presents an open demand for the old and rich trading port to dismantle itself, to burn itself and to ‘replace’ itself by moving inland and reinventing itself as an agricultural colony. Confronted with this final demand after decades of self-enforced and self-abasing ‘appeasement’, Carthage finally finds the courage to stand up and die with honour - and in freedom. The Third Punic War (149-146 BC) is not so much a war as an execution: the outcome of the struggle between all-powerful Rome and death-bound Carthage is a foregone conclusion. After a heroic death struggle, Carthage is annihilated: the burnt city is levelled to the ground, its decimated populace is sold into slavery and its sequestered lands were sowed with salt. It is - just - conceivable that Germany would finally, if confronted with an open globalist demand for self-annihilation through total ethnic replacement, opt for an Ende mit Schrecken instead of a Schrecken ohne Ende.[15] The more realistic scenario, however, is the full materialization of the spectre that is already now haunting Europe: an ‘ex-German’ psycho-historical and geo-political ‘black hole’ that is swallowing up the hole of (Western) Europe in a historically unparalleled process of sadomasochistic self-annihilation. It is this trajectory of gradual self-destruction that Frau Merkel is pursuing for Germany as a palliative alternative for the Wagnerian heroic war-to-the-death that was waged by Carthage. Perhaps she can not even be blamed for her choice: who knows what terrifying vengeance the German people would wreak if they would wake up from the soothing sedatives that ‘nurse Merkel’ is administering in the run-up to their ‘voluntary’ euthanasia?

Against this background, the full significance of Steuckers’ geopolitical analysis sinks in: L’Europe-croupion, que nous avons devant les yeux, est une victime consentante de la globalisation voulue par l’hegemon américain. ...En ce sens, l’Europe actuelle, sans ‘épine dorsale’, est effectivement soumise aux diktats de la haute finance internationale (p.17). [The ‘rump-Europe’ that we presently see before our eyes is the willing victim of the globalism that is imposed by American hegemony. ...In this sense, the present ‘spineless’ Europe is effectively subject to the dictates of international ‘high finance’]. Steuckers gives a clear analysis of what is required to escape from the clutches of the globalist bankers’ regime: nothing less than a new European Renaissance, based on a restoration of maximal economic autarky (systematic re-industrialization, strategic trade treaties, de-privatized monetary supply), a re-introduction of socio-economically balanced forms of ordo-liberalism (Rhineland Model, Keysenian Socialism) and a geopolitical re-orientation towards multipolarity (Eurasian Confederacy, Boreal Alliance). A new geopolitical course in the face of the globalist storm requires not only a unified European effort but also a shrewd European navigation strategy between new geopolitical power poles: ....[P]our se dégager des tutelles exogènes... [l’Europe faut] privilégier les rapports euro-BRICS ou euro-Shanghaï, de façon à nous dégager des étaux de propagande médiatique américaine et du banksterisme de Wall Street, dans lesquels nous étouffons. La multipolarité pourrait nous donner l’occasion de rejouer une carte contestatrice... en matière de politique extérieure (p.18). [To liberate itself from alien rule... [Europe must] prioritize Euro-BRICS or Euro-Shanghai,[16] so that we can free ourselves from the vice of American media propaganda and Wall Street banksterism in which we are currently suffocating. Multipolarity provides us with a means to play a strong hand... in the field of international politics.]

What is the Eurasianist perspective on the globalist program of

‘ethnic replacement’?

La vérité, l'âpre vérité

- Danton

Steuckers grasps the fundamental functionality of the globalist policy of ‘ethnic replacement’, or what he terms the ‘Great Replacement’: it constitutes a geopolitical instrument that serves to permanently weaken the European geopolitical power pole by drowning Europe in the economic and social crises that are the inevitable side-effects of artificially created overpopulation and radically unnatural ethnic ‘diversity’ (straining infrastructure, lowering economic productivity, undermining the rule of law, destroying social cohesion). He points to the simple material interests that are served by the ruthless project of ethnic replacement: Le néo-libéralisme en place est principalement une forme de capitalisme financier, et non industriel et patrimonial, qui a misé sur le court terme, la spéculation, la titrisation, la dollarisation, plutôt que sure les investissements, la recherche et le développement, le longe terme, la consolidation lente et précise des acquis, etc. ...[C’est] une idéologie fumeuse, inapplicable car irréelle... (p.19-20). [Primarily, the neo-liberal order can be understood as a form of finance capitalism - non-industrial and non-patrimonial capitalism - that ‘banks’ on short-term profit through [barely regulated] speculation, security schemes and dollarization instead of long-term gains through investment, research, development and slow and gradual capital consolidation etc. ...[It is] a nebulous ideology that does not work because it is unrealistic...] Thus, in Steuckers’ view, neo-liberalism is effectively a ‘smokescreen’ to hide the ‘Ponzi scheme’ of short-sighted financial piracy on a global scale.

Steuckers’ analysis of the ‘Great Replacement’ is especially interesting in the attention that he pays to its inhuman consequences for the millions of ‘migrants’ who have recently been brought over to Europe from Asia and Africa through globalist policies. He points to the fact that these new ‘illegals’ tend to be reduced to effective ‘slavery’, falling victim to countless forms of bestial exploitation. Les flux hétérogènes, différents des premières vagues migratoires légales vers l’Europe, génèrent, de par leur illégalité, une exploitation cruelle, assimilable à une forme d’esclavage, n’épargnant des mineurs d’âge (50% des nouveaux esclaves !) et basculant largement dans une prostitution incontrôlable. A laquelle s’ajoutent aussi les trafics [de drogues et] d’organes. Cette ‘économie’ parallèle contribue à corrompre les services de police et de justice. ...Tous ces problèmes horribles, inouïs, et le sort cruel des exploités, des enfants réduits à une prostitution incontrôlée, les pauvres hères à qui on achète les organes, les travailleurs sans protection qu’on oblige à effectuer des travaux dangereux ne font pas sourciller les faux humanistes, qui se donnent bonne conscience en défendant les ‘sans papiers’ mais qui sont, par là même, les complices évidents des mafieux... Ceux-ci peuvent ainsi tranquillement poursuivre leurs activités lucratives : en tant qu’idiots utiles, les humanistes... sont complices et donc coupable, coauteurs, des crimes commis contre ces pauvres déracinés sans protection... Nos angélistes aux discours tout de mièvrerie sont donc complices des forfaits commis, au même titre que les proxénètes, les négriers et les trafiquants. Sans la mobilisation des ‘bonnes consciences, ces derniers ne pourraient pas aussi aisément poursuivre leurs menées criminelles (p.20-1). [The recent heterogeneous migration streams differ from the earlier waves of legal immigration into Europe: through their illegality, they generate a cruel exploitation that leads to a new form of slavery which does not even spare minors (who make up half of the new slave population!) as they fall victim to uncontrollable prostitution. Added to this problem should be the trade in drugs and organs. This ‘parallel economy’ also corrupts the police apparatus and judicial systems... These terrible, unimaginable problems and the cruel fate of the exploited illegals, the children that end up in uncontrolled prostitution, the poor wretches that are selling their organs, the unprotected day-labourers that are forced into dangerous work - these problems are ignored by the fake ‘humanists’ that are showing off their ‘clean consciousnesses’ when they are defending the ‘undocumented’, but who are really accomplices to criminal gangs. These crime syndicates are allowed to continue their profitable activities undisturbed - as ‘useful idiots’ these humanists... are effectively accessories to crime: they are facilitating crimes against poor and deracinated people that are lacking in basic protection. Thus, our preachers of the ‘humanist’ discourse of fake concern are guilty as accessories to the crimes that are committed by pimps, slaveholders and human traffickers. Without the ‘humanist’ mobilization of the ‘clean consciousnesses’ these criminals would not be able to do their criminal handiwork with such ease.]

Steuckers’ ruthless analysis of the reprehensible pseudo-humanism of the ‘Social Justice Warrior’ activists and Gutmensch intelligentsia provides an important supplement to the growing public understanding of the direct interests that are served by the continuation of the globalist ‘Great Replacement’ strategy. In this regard, Steuckers’ analysis may be considered as the final intellectual nail in the coffin of the bankrupt discourse of ‘open borders.[17]

What is the Eurasianist diagnosis of Western Postmodernity?

Today we are not witnessing a crisis of civilization, but a wake around its corpse

- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

Steuckers interprets the existential reality of the contemporary West from the perspective of what Traditionalism terms the ‘Crisis of the Modern West’. He points to the absurdist - even ‘idiocratic’ - aspects of the unprecedented political degradation that can only be understood as deliberately engineered. From this perspective, the great majority of Western politicians are no more than insignificant connards et... connasses... qui titubent d’une corruption à l’autre, pour chavirer ensuite dans une autre perversité [‘cucks’ and ‘queenies’ that fall into one corruption after another, only to finally sink into yet some other perversity]. The Western ‘intelligentsia’ are nothing but festivistes écervelés qui se donnent... l’étiquette d’‘humanistes’ [brain-dead party-goers that have the temerity to call themselves ‘humanists’]. To Steuckers, the entire postmodern political enterprise is nothing but technocratisme sans épaisseur éthique [technocracy without ethical substance], led by une série de politiciens sans envergure [et] sans scrupule [a series of politicians without vision and scruples], slipping into [une] absence d’éthique dans le pôle politique qui... provoqu[e] l’implosion du pays [an ethical-political void that ends in the implosion of the nation]. The result is a déliquescence totale [complete dissolution] of state sovereignty, legal order, ethnic identity and social cohesion. In Steuckers’ estimation, France represents the European ‘ground zero’ of the postmodern globalist ‘deconstructive’ process: ...la France, depuis Sarközy et Hollande, n’est plus que la caricature d’elle-même, et la négation de sa propre originalité politico-diplomatique gaullienne... (p.24) [...since Sarkozy and Hollande, France is nothing but a caricature shadow of its former self, an inverted perversion of its Gaullist political and diplomatic original].

In the educational sphere, Steuckers notices clear signs of terminal cultural degeneracy, hastened by misapplied modern technology and resulting in démence digitale [digital dementia], characterized by a combined decline in intellectual stamina, attention spans and social skills. [L]’effondrement du niveau, où le prof doit se mettre au niveau des élèves et capter leur attention no matter what et la négligence des branches littéraires, artistiques, et musicales, qui permettent à l’enfant de tenir compte d’autrui, font basculer les nouvelles générations dans une déhumanisation problématique... (p.26). [The decline in educational standards, which now stipulate that the teacher must seek to ‘level’ with his pupils - no matter what - in order to gain their attention, and the neglect of literature, art and music - fields that allow youngsters to practice altruism - are hurtling new generations into an abyss of dehumanization...] The psycho-social impact of this educational degeneracy causes an acceleration in the ‘psychiatrization’ of Western society as a whole. In this regard, Steuckers points to the results of recent research in Belgium: [Les spécialistes voient] disparaître toute forme de ‘normalité’ et glisser nos populations vers ce qu’il[s] appelle[nt], en jargon de psychiatrie, le borderline, la ‘limite’ acceptable pour tout comportement social intégré, une borderline que de plus en plus de citoyens franchisent malheureusement pour basculer dans une forme plus ou moins douce, plus ou moins dangereuse de folie : en Belgique , 25% de la population est en ‘traitement’, 10% ingurgitent des antidépresseurs, de 2005 à 2009 le nombre d’enfants et d’adolescents contraints de prendre de la ritaline a doublé rien qu’en Flandre ; en 2007, la Flandre est le deuxième pays sur las liste en Europe quant au nombre de suicides... (p.26) [Among the general population, specialists are noticing the disappearance of ‘normality’ and a downward trend that is approaching what is known in the psychiatric profession as the ‘borderline’, i.e. the critical minimum level that is acceptable for socially adjusted behaviour - a ‘borderline’ that is breached by increasing numbers of citizens, resulting in more or less ‘soft’ as well as more or less dangerous forms of madness.

Thus, in Belgium 25% of the population is ‘in treatment’, 10% uses antidepressants and the number of children and adolescents that is forced to take ritaline in the region of Flanders alone has doubled between 2005 and 2009 and Flanders is now the second highest listed European region in terms of suicide frequency...] It should be added, that in the northern regions of the Low Countries the same trend is perhaps even more pronounced: the Dutch public sphere is now characterized by infantile regression, narcissist aggression and commercially-sponsored ‘idiocracy’ (phenomena promoted by television ‘celebrities’ such as ‘motivation coach’ Emile Ratelband, ‘model personality’ Paul de Leeuw and ‘morality anaesthetist’ Jeroen Pauw).

Characteristic for the psycho-social implosion of the postmodern West is a radical loss of all authentic forms of traditional identity (ethnicity, religion, birth caste, age cohort, gender, personal vocation). In this regard, Steuckers points to the clear link between the consistently deliberate ‘deconstruction’ of identity and actualized insanity: Sans identité, sans tradition, sans ‘centre’ intérieur, on devient fou... Ceux qui nous contrarient au nom de leurs chimères et leurs délires, sont, par voie de conséquence, sans trop solliciter les faits, des fous qui veulent précipiter leurs contemporains au-delà de la borderline... (p.27) [Without identity, without tradition, without inner ‘core’, people become unstable and insane... Without exaggeration, it can be stated that those who fight us in the name of their delusions and illusions are truly insane: they are madmen, driving their contemporaries across the ‘borderline’].

What is the Eurasianist prognosis for Western Postmodernity?

‘The End of the Affair’

#

Steuckers is of the opinion that the structural lack of a substantive patriotic-identitarian political opposition to the globalist ‘hostile elite’ of Europe is the result of a fatal combination of personal feuds within its leadership, politically opportunistic islamophobia (which confuses the ideology of ‘islamicism’ - Wahhabism and Salafism - with ‘Islam’ as Tradition) and short-sighted definitions of (narrow) nationalist interests. The tendency towards (hyper-)nationalist Alleingang that marks recent European history - and which still divides the European nations - is facilitating the anti-European globalist project. In this regard, Steuckers points to the great value of the alternative vision of Eurasianism: only a confederative activation of a Eurasian ‘imperial bloc’ of sovereign states can protect the peoples of Europe against the globalist ‘thalassocracy’ that is based on the Trans-Atlantic/Anglo-Saxon axis. The next logical step would be the neutralization of globalism on the basis of a ‘boreal alliance’ between the Eurasian bloc and the overseas peoples of European descent.

In the final analysis, Steuckers is not optimistic regarding the chances of a short-term translation of the metapolitical vision of Eurasianism into a real-world project. In his view, the build-up of an alternative network of coordinating metapolitical institutions is an absolute precondition for a successful challenge to the politically-correct ‘hostile elite’ that now controls Europe’s establishment universities, media and think tanks. Only such an alternative network can organize a coordinated strategy of pinpricks (debates, demonstrations, electoral preparation). It should be added that stable material facilities (legal assistance, labour union funding, professional security facilities) are absolute preconditions for any viable political and activist strategy of peaceful and legitimate civic resistance.

Steuckers predicts that the globalist New World Order and its foundational soixante-huitard discourse of neo-liberalism and cultural marxism will eventually collapse, but only after a total collapse of Western civilization in a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. He assumes that the West has to drink its cup of ‘constructivism’ - the heaven-storming delusion of hyper-humanist absolute and universal ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ - to its last bitter dregs. The utopian ‘imagine’ dreams of the soixante-huitards - the angelic reveries of ‘progress’ and ‘constructability’ that hide the actual practices of the demonically possessed babyboomers - will become real-life nightmares for the next generations: these will include the Asiatic and African assault of Gog and Magog on the European ‘Camp of the Saints’ and the ‘Zombie Apocalypse’ of extreme-matriarchical social implosion.[18]Selon l’adage: qui veut faire l’ange, fait la bête... Les négateurs de balises et de limites, qui voulaient tout bousculer au nom du ‘progrès’ (qu’ils imaginent au-delà de tout empirisme), vont provoquer une crise qui rendra leurs rêves totalement impossibles pour au moins une dizaine de générations, sauf si nous connaissons l’implosion totale et définitive... Quant aux solutions que nous pourrions apporter, elles sont nulles car le système a bétonné toute critique : il voulait poursuivre sa logique, sans accepter le moindre correctif démocratique, en croyant que tout trouverait une solution. Ce calcul s’est avéré faux. Archifaux. Donc tout va s’éffondrer. Devant notre lucidité. Nous rirons de la déconfiture de nos adversaires mais nous pleurerons amèrement sur les malheurs de nos peuples (p.23). [According to the adage that ‘who wants to play the angel will play the beast’... Those that ignore the traffic signs and speed limits [of civilization] and that overthrow the established order in the name of ‘progress’ (those that thought they are exempt from the rules of empiricism) will unleash a crisis that will render their dreams totally impossible for at least ten generation - unless we will actually face a total and final implosion of [Western] civilization... With regard to the solutions that we may propose: they are utterly worthless because the system voids every form of constructive criticism. Thus, the system will have to fully complete the cycle of its own [destructive] logic - it is unable to cope with even the tiniest dose of democratic correction because it is based on the assumption that there exists a ‘constructivist’ solution to all problems. This calculation has proven to be not just faulty, but dead wrong. And so everything will collapse - in front of our very eyes. We will enjoy the total defeat of our enemies, but we will bitterly weep over the misfortune of our peoples.]

Coda

Despite the disputed validity of Fichtean-Hegelian dialectic model (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) in pure philosophy, it remains valuable as a heuristic tool in the philosophically inspired culture sciences. Projected on European history, it sheds light on cyclical patterns of punctus contra punctum, patterns that are consistently followed by a sublime recapitulation. A ‘Faustian’ element of self-surpassing resurrection becomes visible - not only in the heathen-heroic half but also in the Christian-ascetic half of the European Tradition. Thus, it is only fitting that le Rouge et le Noir ends on a note that does justice to both:

[4] For the metahistorical background and historical rise of thalassocratic Modernity cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2018. It should be noted that this book is now – until 1 December – temporarily available at a promotional discount at https://www.cambridgescholars.com/the-centenary-of-armist... .

[5] The dubious honour of having written the last undiluted-purist work of Whig History belongs to no one less than Winston Churchill, who started his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples between his infamous ‘own goal’ terms in office in the First and Second World Wars, alternatively entitled ‘Things in history That Interested Me’ by Clement Atlee. Note that in 1898 the historiographical revilement of Spain was shortly revived by American journalists to underpin the ‘false flag’ rhetoric that preceded the Spanish-American War.

[15] A precise – and therefore irrealistic – historical projection of the historical Roman-Carthaginian confrontation between 264 and 146 BC (90 years in total) renders such a scenario unlikely: a German ‘last stand’ should have commenced in the year 2001.

[16] Respectively, the strategic partnership between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, dating back to 2009 (cf. n.8) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, dating back to 1996.

lundi, 03 septembre 2018

Monika Berchvok Speaks With Robert Steuckers

Translation: https://institutenr.or

Following the publication of Pages celtiques by éditions du Lore and the trilogy Europa by éditions Bios of Lille, Monika Berchvok subjected the author of these works, Robert Steuckers, to a rapid fire volley of questions, showing that even the rebels of the young generation of the 2010s want to know the oldest roots of this silent revolt which is growing across all of Europe. Monika Berchvok previously interviewed Robert Steuckers during the publication of La Révolution conservatrice allemande by éditions du Lore in 2014.

Your career is extremely intellectually wealthy. What is the origin of your engagement?

To speak of intellectual wealth is certainly exaggerated: I am above all a man of my generation, to whom they still taught the “basics”, which today, alas, have disappeared from academic curricula. I experienced my childhood and adolescence in a world that was still marked by quiet tradition, the mores and manners were not those of the industrial world or the service sector, where we increasingly separate from concrete and tangible reality, increasingly acquiring an unbounded pretension and arrogance against “provincials,” like me, who remain anchored in the muck of reality with their heavy boots (yes, yes, that’s from Heidegger…). My father, who really hadn’t been to school, except to the primary school in his Limburg village, wanted nothing to do with the fashions and crazes that agitated our contemporaries in the 1960s and 70s; “all fafouls,” he claimed, “fafoul” being a Brussels dialect term used to designate idiots and cranks. I lived in a home without television, far from and hostile to the mediocre little universe of the pop tune, variety show, and hippy or yéyé subculture. I still thank my progenitor, 25 years after his death, for having been able to totally resist the miserable abjection of all those years where decline advanced in giant steps. Without television, it goes without saying, I had a lot of time to read. Thanks Papa.

Next, I was a gifted student in primary school but fundamentally lazy and desperately curious, the only life saver, to avoid ending up a tramp or a prole, was learning languages to a competent level because, in Brussels, I lived on a street where they spoke the three national languages (and the dialectical variants), with the Russian of a few former White officers and their children who wound up in our fair city in addition. With this linguistic plurality, the task was already half done. Clément Gstadler, a neighbor, an old Alsatian teacher who had ended up in Belgium, told me, donning his ever present traditional hat of the Thann countryside and with a razor sharp Teutonic accent: “My boy, we are as many times men as languages we know.” Strengthened by this tirade hammered into me by Gstadler, I thus enrolled, at the age of eighteen, in Germanic philology and then in the school of translators – interpreters.

The origin of my engagement is the will to remain faithful to all these brave men that we consider anachronistic today. On their certitudes, under siege, we must erect a defensive structure, which we hope will become offensive one day, resting on principles diametrically opposed to the hysterics of the trendy people, to construct in our hearts an alternative, impregnable fortress, that we are determined never to give up.

How do you define your metapolitical combat?

Dilthey, with whom the alternative minded of our type unfortunately aren’t familiar enough, partially constructed his philosophical system around one strong simple idea: “We only define what is dead, the things and facts whose time has definitively ended.” This fight is not over because I haven’t yet passed from life to death, doubtlessly in order to thwart those who my stubbornness displeases. It is evident, as a child of the 1950s and 60s, that my first years of life unfolded in an era where we wanted to throw everything away. It’s of course a gesture that I found stupid and unacceptable.

Retrospectively, I can say that I felt, in my young mind, that religion left the scene as soon as it renounced Latin and the spirit of the crusader, very present in Belgium, even among peaceful, calm, authors, like a certain Marcel Lobet, totally forgotten today, doubtlessly because of the excessive moderation of his words, nevertheless ultimately invigorating for those who knew how to capture their deep meaning. The philosopher Marcel Decorte, in his time, noted that society was disintegrating and that it was collapsing into “dissociety,” a term that we find again today, even in certain left wing circles, to designate the present state of our countries, weakened by successive waves of “civilizational negationism,” such as the ideology of Mai 68, New Philosophy, neo-liberal pandemonium, or gender ideology, all “dissociative” phenomena, or vectors of “dissociation,” which today converge in the Macronist imposture, mixing together all these baneful delusions, seven decades after opening Pandora’s Box. Thus the metapolitical combat must be a combat that unceasingly exposes the perverse nature of these civilizational negationisms, continuously denouncing above all the outfits, generally based beyond the Atlantic, that fabricate them in order to weaken European societies to create a new humanity, totally formatted according to “dissociative” criteria, negators of reality as it is (and cannot be otherwise, as the relevant philosopher Clément Rosset remarked, who unfortunately passed away in recent weeks). To make a metaphor with the ancient world, I would say that a metapolitical combat, in our sense, consists of, as the European history expert of Radio Courtoisie Thomas Ferrier said, putting all these negationisms in Pandora’s Box, from which they sprang, then closing it.

You mention “bio-conservatism” in your recent works? What does this term cover?

I didn’t mention “bio-conservatism.” My editor, Laurent Hocq of Editions Bios, believes that it’s a path we will need to explore, precisely in order to fight “civilizational negationisms,” notably all the elements that deny the corporeality of man, his innate phylogenetics, and his ontology. For me a well conceived bio-conservatism must go back to the implicit sociology that Louis de Bonald sketched in the 19th century, critiquing the individualist drift of the Enlightenment philosophers and the French Revolution. Romanticism, in its non-ethereal or tearful aspects, insists on the organicity, vitalist and biological, of human and social phenomena. We must couple these two philosophical veins – traditional conservative realism and organic Romanticism – and then connect them to the more recent and more scientifically established achievements of biocybernetics and systems theory, while avoiding falling into perverse social engineering as desired by the Tavistock Institute, whose cardinal role in the elaboration of all forms of brain washing that we’ve endured for more than sixty years was investigated by the “conspiracy theorist” Daniel Estulin, now living in Spain. The “Tavistockians” used biocybernetics and systems theory to impose a “depoliticized” culture across the Western world. Today these disciplines can be perfectly mobilized to “re-politicize” culture. Laurent Hocq wants to initiate this work of metapolitical mobilization with me. We will have to mobilize people competent in these domains to complete the task.

At the end of the road, rethinking “bio-conservatism” is nothing more or less than the will to restore a “holistic” society in the best sense of the term as quickly as possible, that is to say a society that defends itself and immunizes itself against the fatal hypertrophies leading us to ruin, to degradation: economic hypertrophy, juridical hypertrophy (the power of manipulative and sophist jurists), the hypertrophy of the services sector, hypertrophy of petty moralism detached from reality, etc.

Localism is also a theme that often reoccurs in your recent books. For you the return to the local has an identitarian dimension, as well as a social and ecological one?

Localism or the “vernacular” dimensions of human societies that function harmoniously, according to timeless rhythms, are more necessary than ever at a time where a sagacious geographer such as Christophe Guilluy notes the decline of “France from below”, the marvelous little provincial towns that are dying before our eyes because they no longer offer a sufficient number of local jobs and because their light industry has been relocated and dispersed to the four corners of the planet. Attention to localism is an urgent necessity in our time, in order to respond to a terrifying evil of neo-liberalism that has expanded since Thatcher’s accession to power in Great Britain and all the fatal policies that the imitators of this “Iron Lady” have seen fit to import into Europe and elsewhere in the world.

The refusal of the migratory “great replacement” happens through an understanding of immigration movements in the era of total globalization. How can the tendency of migratory flows be reversed?

By not accepting them, quite simply. We are a stubborn phalanx and it is imperative that our stubbornness become contagious, taking on the appearance of a global pandemic.

Nevertheless, when you mention the fact that there must be an “understanding of migratory movements,” you indirectly underline the necessity of deeply understanding the contexts from which these migrants come. For half a century, and even longer since Mai 68 had antecedents in the two decades that preceded it, we have been fattened on junk culture, of inane varieties, which occupies our minds with time consuming spectacles and prevents them from concentrating on things as real as they are essential. A good state is a state that inquires about the forces at work in the world. Whether migratory flows are accepted or not, every host state, guided by a healthy vision of things, should draw up an economic, ethnic, and social cartography of the populations coming from the emigrants’ countries.

For Africa, that means understanding the economic state of each migrant exporting country, the possible system of kleptocracy that reigns there, the ethnic components (and the conflicts and alliances that result from them), the history of each of these political or anthropological phenomena, etc. This knowledge must then be delivered by an honest press to the citizens of our countries, so that they can make judgments about credible pieces and not be forced to vote according to unremitting propaganda based on inconsistent slogans.

For Syria we should have known, before the waves of refugees spilled into Europe, the religious and tribal structures of the country in a very precise manner: actually, the media, generally uncultivated and dependent on the “junk culture” imposed on us for decades, discovered the Syrian divisions that had been ignored until now. Only a handful among us has a clear notion of who the Alawites or Yezidis are, knows that the Syrian Christian communities have complicated divisions, understands the tacit alliance that unites Alawites with Twelver Shiites, understands that the principal enemy of the Ba’athist political system is the Muslim Brotherhood, which fomented the terrible disorders of 1981-1982 that ravaged Syria in the time of Hafez al-Assad, father of the current president. In short, the general public knows nothing about the complexity of Syria. The only bone it has to gnaw is the slogan that decrees Assad is a horrible monster, fit to be eliminated by fundamentalist assassins or American bombs.

For Africa, the only means of reducing the waves of refugees, real or solely economic, would be to put an end to evidently very kleptocratic regimes, in order to fix the populations on their native soil by redirecting sums of money toward infrastructural investment. In certain more precise cases, that would also happen through a return to a subsistence agricultural economy and a partial and well regulated abandonment of monoculture which doesn’t properly nourish populations, especially those that have opted for rural exodus towards the cities and sprawling slums, like Nigeria for example.

For Syria, we should have established a filter to sort refugees but that would have, ipso facto, privileged Muslim or Christian communities allied to the regime, to the detriment of the hostile social classes, who are totally un-integrable into our European societies, because the Salafism that animates them is viscerally hostile to all forms of syncretism and all cultures that do not correspond to it 100%. Moreover, as a general rule, the reception of migratory flows coming from countries where there are dangerous mafias is not recommended even if these countries are European like Sicily, Kosovo, Albania, or certain Caucasian countries. All immigration should pass through a well established anthropological screening process and not be left to chance, at the mercy of the “invisible hand” like the one that all the liberals expect the world to be perfected by. Non-discernment in the face of migratory flows has transformed this constant of human history into a catastrophe with unpredictable repercussions in its current manifestations, as evidently these flows do not bring us a better society but create a deleterious climate of inter-ethnic conflict, unbridled criminality, and latent civil war.

Reversing the tendency of migratory flows will happen when we finally implement a program of triage for migrations, aiming for the return of criminals and mafiosos, the psychologically unbalanced (that they deliberately send here, the infrastructure capable of accommodating them being non-existent in their countries of origin), politicized elements that seek to import political conflicts foreign to us. Such a policy will be all the more difficult to translate into daily reality where the imported mass of migrants is too large. Then we cannot manage it in proper conditions.

You knew Jean Thiriart. Does his political vision of a “Great Europe” still seem relevant?

Jean Thiriart was firstly a neighbor for me, a man who lived in my neighborhood. I can note that behind the sturdy and gruff sexagenarian hid a tender heart but bruised to see humanity fall into ridicule, triviality, and cowardice. I didn’t know the activist Thiriart because I was only twelve when he abandoned his political combat at the end of the 1960s. This combat, which extended over a short decade starting from Belgium’s abandonment of the Congo and the tragic epilogue of the war in Algeria for the French, two years later. Thiriart was motivated by a well developed general idea: abolish the Yalta duopoly, which made Europe hemiplegic and powerless, and send back the Americans and Soviets in succession in order to allow the Europeans to develop independently. He belonged to a generation that had entered politics, very young, at the end of the 1930s (the emergence of Rexism, the Popular Front, the war in Spain, the Stalinist purges, Anschluss, the end of the Czechoslovakia born at Versailles), experienced the Second World War, the defeat of the Axis, the birth of the state of Israel, the coup in Prague, and the blockade in Berlin in 1948, the Korean War, and the end of Stalinism.

Two events certainly contributed to steer them towards an independentist European nationalism, different in sentiment from the European nationalism professed by the ideologues of the Axis: the Hungarian Revolt of 1956 and the Suez campaign, the same year, the year of my birth in January. The West, subjugated by Washington, did nothing to aid the unfortunate Hungarians. Worse, during the Suez affair, the Americans and the Soviets forced the French and British to unconditionally withdraw from the Egyptian theater of operations. Thiriart, and a good number of his companions, temporary or not, observed that the duopoly had no desire to dissolve itself or even to fight each other, to modify one way or the other the line of the Iron Curtain that cut Europe across its center, to tolerate any geopolitical affirmation on the part of European powers (even if they were members of the UN Security Council like France and the United Kingdom). The decolonization of the Congo also demonstrated that the United States was unwilling to support the Belgian presence in central Africa, despite the fact that Congolese uranium underpinned the nuclear supremacy of Washington since the atom bombs fabricated in order to bring Japan to its knees in 1945. A little history, Hergé’s brother was the only Belgian military officer not to chicken out and he showed an arrogant hostility to the NATO troops who came to take control of his Congolese base.

One thing leading to another, Thiriart would create the famous movement “Jeune Europe” that would inject many innovations into the discourse of the activist milieu and contest the established order of what one could classify as the extreme-right in its conventional forms, petty nationalists or Poujadists. The “habitus” of the extreme-right did not please Thiriart at all, who judged them unproductive and pathological. A reader of the great classics of the realist politics, especially Machiavelli and Pareto, he wanted to create a small hyper-politicized phalanx, rationally proceeding from truly political criteria and not thin emotions, creating only behavioral indiscipline. This political hyper-realism implied thinking in terms of geopolitics, having a knowledge of the general geography of the planet. This wish was realized in Italy alone, where the magazine Eurasia of his disciple and admirer Claudio Mutti has done remarkably well and has attained a very elevated degree of scientific precision.

To bypass the impediment of Yalta, Thiriart believed that we needed seek allies across the Mediterranean and in the East of the vast Soviet territorial mass: thus the attempt to dialogue with the Nasserist Arab nationalists and the Chinese of Chou Enlai. The Arab attempt rested on a precise Mediterranean vision, not understood by the Belgian militants and very well comprehended, on the contrary, by his Italian disciples: according to Thiriart this internal sea must be freed from all foreign tutelage. He reproached the various forms of nationalism in Belgium for not understanding the Mediterranean stakes, these forms turned more towards Germany or the Netherlands, England or the Scandinavian countries, an obligatory “Nordic” tropism. His reasoning about the Mediterranean resembled that of Victor Barthélémy, an adviser of Doriot and also a former communist, a reasoning shared by Mussolini as mentioned in his memoirs. Thiriart very probably derived his vision of Mediterranean geopolitics from a feeling of bitterness following the eviction of England and France from the Mediterranean space after the Suez affair in 1956 and the war in Algeria.

According to Thiriart, the Europeans shared a common Mediterranean destiny with the Arabs that could not be obliterated by the Americans and their Zionist pawns. Even if the French, the English, and the Italians had been chased from the Arabophone North African shore, the new independent Arab states could not renounce this Mediterranean destiny they shared with non-Muslim Europeans, massed on the Northern shore. For Thiriart, the waters of the Great Blue sea unite, not separate. From this fact, we must favor a policy of convergence between the two civilizational spaces, for the defense of the Mediterranean against the element foreign to this space, interfering there, constituted by the American fleet commanded from Naples.

The idea of allying with the Chinese against the Soviet Union aimed to force the Soviet Union to let go of its ballast in Europe in order to confront the Chinese masses on the Amur River front. The dual project of wagering on the Nasserist Arabs and the Chinese marked the last years of Thiriart’s political activity. The 1970s were, for him, years of silence or rather years where he immersed himself in the defense of his professional niche, namely optometry. When he returned to the fight at the start of the 1980s, he was nearly forgotten by the youngest and eclipsed by other political and metapolitical lines of thought; moreover the given facts had considerably changed: the Americans had allied with the Chinese in 1972 and, since then, the latter no longer constituted an ally. Like others, in their own corners and independently of each other, such as Guido Giannettini and Jean Parvulesco, he elaborated a Euro-Soviet or Euro-Russian project that the Yeltsin regime didn’t allow to come to fruition. In 1992 he visited Moscow, met Alexander Dugin and the “red-browns,” but unexpectedly died in November of the same year.

What we must retain from Thiriart is the idea of a cadre school formed on principles derived from pure political philosophy and geopolitics. We must also retain the idea of Europe as a singular geostrategic and military space. It’s the lesson of the Second World War: Westphalia defended itself on the beaches of Normandy, Bavaria on the Côte d’Azur and along the Rhône, Berlin at Kursk. Engines allowed for the considerable narrowing of the strategic space just as they allowed for the Blitzkrieg of 1940: with horse-drawn carts, no army could take Paris from Lorraine or Brabant. The failures of Philip II after the battle of Saint-Quentin prove it, Götz von Berlichingen never went past Saint-Dizier, the Prussians and Austrians never went past Valmy, and the armies of the Kaiser were stopped on the Marne. One exception: the entrance of the allies into Paris after the defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig. The United States is henceforth the sole superpower, even if the development of new arms and imperial hypertrophy, that it imposed on itself through unthinking immoderation, slowly break down this colossal military power, recently defied by the new capabilities of Russian or perhaps Chinese missiles. European independence happens through a sort of vast front of refusal, through the participation of synergies outside of what Washington desires, as Armin Mohler also wanted. This refusal will slowly but surely erode the supremacist policy of the Americans and finally make the world “multipolar.” As Thiriart, but also Armin Mohler, doubtlessly wanted, and, following them, Alexander Dugin, Leonid Savin, and yours truly want, multipolarity is the objective to aim for.

Three German author seem to have left their mark on you particularly: Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt and Günter Maschke. What do you retain from their thought?

Actually, you ask me to write a book… I admire the political writings of the young Jünger, composed in the middle of the turmoil of the 1920s just as I also admire his travel narratives, his seemingly banal observations which have made some Jüngerians, exegetes of his work, say that he was an “Augenmensch,” literally a “man of the eyes,” a man who surveys the world of nature and forms (cultural, architectural) through his gaze, through a penetrating gaze that reaches far beyond the surface of apparent things and perceives the rules and the rhythms of their internal nature.

Very soon I will release a voluminous but certainly not exhaustive work on Carl Schmitt. Here I want to remind people that Carl Schmitt wrote his first relevant texts at the age of sixteen and laid down his last fundamental text onto paper at 91. So we have a massive body of work that extends over three quarters of a century. Carl Schmitt is the theorist of many things but we essentially retain from him the idea of decision and the idea of the “great space.” My work, published by éditions du Lore, will show the Schmitt’s relation to Spain, the very particular nature of his Roman Catholicism in the context of debates that animated German Catholicism, his stance in favor of Land against Sea, etc.

Speaking about Günter Maschke interests me more in the framework of the present interview. I met Günter Maschke at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1984, then during a small colloquium organized in Cologne by high schoolers and students under the banner of the Gesamtdeutscher Studentenverband, an association that intended to oversee the student organizations which, at the time, were working towards the reunification of the country. Maschke was a thundering and petulant former leader of the activist years of 1967 and 1968 in Vienna, from which he would be expelled for street violence. In order to escape prison in West Germany, because he was a deserter, he successfully defected, via the French collective, “Socialisme ou Barbarie,” first to Paris, then Cuba. He then settled in the insular Castroist Carribean republic and met Castro there, who gave him a tour of the island in order to show him “his” sugar cane fields and all “his” agricultural property. Maschke, who can’t hold his tongue, retorted to him, “But you are the greatest latifundist in Latin America!” Vexed, the supreme leader didn’t renew his right of asylum and Maschke found himself back at the beginning, that is to say in a West German prison for thirteen months, the span of the military service he refused, as demanded by the law. In prison, he discovered Carl Schmitt and his Spanish disciple Donoso Cortès, and in the cramped space of his cell, he found his road to Damascus.

Many activists from 67-68 in Germany henceforth turned their backs on the ideologies they professed or utilized (without really believing in them too much) in their youth years: Rudi Dutschke was basically a anti-American Lutheran nationalist; his brothers gave interviews to the Berlin new conservative magazine Junge Freiheit and not usual leftist press, which repeats the slogans of yesterday without realizing that it has fallen into anachronism and ridicule; Frank Böckelmann, who was presented to me by Maschke during a Book Fair, came from German Situationism and never hesitated to castigate his former comrades whose anti-patriotism, he said, was the mark of a “craving for limits,” of a will to limit themselves and mutilate themselves politically, to practice ethno-masochism. Klaus Rainer Röhl, a nonagenarian today, was the spouse of Ulrike Meinhof, who sunk into terrorism with Baader. Röhl too became closer to the nationalists while the articles of Ulrike Meinhof in her magazine konkret would trigger the first fights in Berline during the arrival of the Shah of Iran.

Uli Edel’s film devoted to the “Baader Meinhof Gang” (2008) also shows the gradual slide of the terrorist “complex” in West Germany, which arose from an idealistic and unreasoning, uninhibited, and hysteric anti-imperialism, but often correct in some of its analyses, to pass into an even more radical terrorism but ultimately in the service of American imperialism: in his film, Edel shows the stakes very clearly, notably when Baader, already arrested and sentenced, speaks with the chief of police services and explains to him that the second generation of terrorists no longer obeys the same guidelines, especially not his. The second generation of terrorists, while Meinhof, Baader and Ensslin (Maschke’s sister in law!) were imprisoned and had not yet committed suicide, assassinated statesmen or economic decision makers who correctly wanted to pursue policies in contradiction with the desires of the United States and free West Germany from the cumbersome tutelage that Washington imposed on it. This shift also explains the attitude taken by Horst Mahler, Baader’s lawyer and partisan in armed struggle in his time. He would also pass to nationalism when he was released from prison, a nationalism strongly tinted with Lutheranism, and he would return to prison for “revisionism.” The last I heard, he was still languishing there.

At the start of the 1980s, Maschke was an editor in Cologne and notably published the works of Carl Schmitt (Land and Sea), Mircea Eliade, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Agnès Heller, and Régis Debray. Every year, in October when the famous Frankfurt Book Fair took place, Maschke, who thought I had the countenance of an imperturbable young reactionary, had Sigi, his unforgettable spouse who left us much too soon, set up a cot in the middle of his prestigious office, where the most beautiful flowers of his library were found. So every year, from 1985 to 2003, I frequented the “Maschke Salon,” where personalities as prestigious as the Catholic and conservative writer Martin Mosebach or the Greek political philosopher Panajotis Kondylis, the ex-Situationist Franck Böckelmann,or the Swiss polemicist Jean-Jacques Langendorf dropped by. These soirees were, I must admit, pretty boozy; we sang and performed poems (Maschke likes those by Gottfried Benn), the fun was de rigeur and the ears of a good number of fools and pretentious people must have rung as they were lampooned. I inherited a frank manner of talking from Maschke, who often reproached me, and he helped consolidate my mocking Bruxellois verve, which I owe to my uncle Joseph, my mother’s very sarcastic brother.

I can’t finish this segment without recalling the fortuitous meeting between Maschke and Joschka Fischer, the year where the latter had become a minister in the Land of Hesse, the first step that would lead him to become the German minister of foreign affairs who made his country participate in the war against Serbia. Fischer strolled down the long hallways of the Book Fair. Maschke came up to him and patted his stomach, very plump, saying to everyone: “Well, comrade Fischer, fattening up to become minister.” Next followed a torrent of acerbic words poured out on the little Fischer who looked at his sneakers (his trademark at the time, in order to look “cool”) and stammered apologies that he wasn’t. Scolding him as if he was only a dirty brat, Maschke proved to him that his Schmittian neo-nationalism was in accord with the anti-imperialist tendencies of the 1967-68 years, while Fischer’s alignment was a shameful treason. The future would give him ample justification: Fischer, former violent Krawallo (hooligan) of Hessian leftism, became a vile servant of capitalist and American imperialism: the dithyrambic phrases that he pronounced these last weeks praising Chancellor Merkel only accentuate this bitter feeling of betrayal. These remarks are evidently valid for Daniel Cohn-Bendit, today a war monger on sale to Washington. Jean-François Kahn, in an interview very recently accorded to Revue des deux mondes, spoke of him as a former sixty-eighter turned neocon in the style of the East Side Trotskyites.

In his quest after his return from Cuba and his stay in a dreary Bavarian prison, Maschke, unlike Mahler or Dutschke’s family for example, evolved, with Schmitt and Donoso, towards a Baroque and joyous Catholicism, strongly tinted with Hispanicism and rejected the uptight, Protestant, and neo-Anabaptist violence that so clearly marked the German extra-parliamentary revolutionaries of the sixties. For him as for the director Edel, the Ensslin sisters, for example, were excessively marked by the rigorous and hyper-moralist education inherent to their Protestant familial milieu, which seemed insupportable after his stay in Cuba and his journeys to Spain. Also because Gudrun Ensslin fell into a morbid taste for an unbridled and promiscuous sexuality, resulting from a rejection of Protestant Puritanism as Edel’s film highlights. The Maschkian critique of the anti-Christianity of the (French) New Right is summarized by a few choice words, as is his habit: thus he repeats, “they are guys who read Nietzsche and Asterix simultaneously and then fabricated a system from this mixture.” For him, the anti-Christianity of Nietzsche was a hostility to the rigors of the Protestantism of the family of Prussian pastors from which the philosopher of Sils-Maria came, a mental attitude that is impossible to transpose in France, whose tradition is Catholic, Maschke doesn’t take the Jansenist tradition into account. These anecdotes show that any political attitude must fall back into a kind of Aristotlean realism.

You return to the contribution of the Celtic world to our continental civilization in your book “Pages celtiques.” What do we retain from the “Gaulish” in our European identity? You return to the Irish and the Scottish nationalist movement at length. What lessons should we draw from their long struggles?

In “Pages celtiques”, I wanted, essentially, to underline three things: firstly, the disappearance of all Celtic cultural and linguistic references is the result of the Romanization of the Gauls; this Romanization was apparently rapid within the elites but slower in the spheres of popular culture, where they resisted for five or six centuries. The vernacular culture retained the Celtic language until the arrival of the Germans, the Franks, who took over from the Romans. We can affirm that the popular religiosity retained the religiosity of “eternal peasants” (Mircea Eliade) and it remained more or less the religion whose rituals were practiced by the Celts. This religiosity of the soil remained intact under the Christian veneer, only the religion of the elites from the start. The dei loci, the gods of places, simply became saints or Madonnas, nestled in the trunks of oaks or placed at crossroads or near springs. The “de-Celticization,” the eradication of the religion of “eternal peasants,” occurred under the blows of modernity, with the generalization of television and … with Vatican II. What the French still have from the “Gaulish”, was put to sleep: it’s a fallow field awaiting a reawakening. Our essence, in Belgium, was deeply Germanized and Romanized, in the sense where the Eburons, the Aduatuques, and the Treviri were already partially Germanized in the time of Caesar or later when the Ingvaeonic Germanic tribes settled in the valley of the Meuse served Rome and rapidly Latinized.

Secondly the Celtic contribution is equally Christian in the sense where, at the end of the Merovingian era and at the start of the Pippinic / Carolingian era, Christian missions were not only guided by Rome, they were also Irish – Scottish with Saint Columban, who settled in Luxeuil-les-Bains, the formerly Gaulish, then Roman, thermal baths site. Lorraine, Alsace, Franche-Comté, Switzerland, Wurtemberg, Bavaria, Tyrol, and a part of Northern Italy received the Christian message not from the apostles who came from the Levant or missionaries mandated by Rome but from Irish – Scottish monks and ascetics who proclaimed a Christianity closer to the natural religiosity of the indigenous peoples, with some pantheist dimensions, while advocating the large scale copying of ancient, Greek and Latin manuscripts. The Christian, Celtic, and Greco-Latin syncretism that they offered us remains the foundation of our European culture and any attempt to remove or eradicate one of these elements would be a useless, even perverse, mutilation, that would deeply unbalance the foundations of our societies. The smug and foolish moralism, proper to the recent history of the Church and its desire to “third worldize,” also ruined all the seduction that the religion could exercise on the popular masses. Failing to take the vernacular (Celtic or otherwise) into account and ceasing to defend the heritage of the classical humanities (with the political philosophy of Aristotle) at any price has separated the masses from the intellectual and political elites of the Church. The parishes have lost their flocks: actually, what did they have to gain from hearing the moralizing sermons without depth repeated ad nauseum that the Church henceforth offers to them.

Thirdly, in the 18th century, the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh Enlightenment philosophers were certainly hostile to absolutism, calling for new forms of democracy, demanding popular participation in public affairs and calling for a respect of vernacular cultures by the elite. The enlightenment republicanism of the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh hostile to the English monarchy which subjected the Celtic peoples and Scottish people (a mixture of Celts, Norwegians, and free Anglo Saxons) to a veritable process of colonization, particularly cruel, but this hostility was accompanied by a very pious devotion to the cultural productions of the common people. In Ireland, this republicanism was not hostile to the homegrown and anti-establishment Catholicism of the Irish nor to the multiple remnants of pantheist paganism that was naturally and syncretically harbored in this Irish Catholicism. The representatives of this religiosity were not treated as “fanatics,” “superstitious,” or “brigands” by the Republican elites. They would not be vilified nor dragged to the guillotine or gallows.

The Celtic Enlightenment philosophers of the British Isles did not deny rootedness. On the contrary, they exalted it. Brittany, non-republican, was the victim, like the entire West, of a ferocious repression by the “infernal columns.” It largely adhered to the ancien régime, cultivating nostalgia, also because it had, in the era of the ancien régime, a “Parliament of Brittany,” that functioned in an optimal manner. The uncle of Charles De Gaulle, “Charles De Gaulle No. 1”, would be the head of a Celtic renaissance in Brittany in the 19th century, in the framework of a monarchist ideology. In the same era, the Irish independence activists struggled to obtain “Home Rule” (administrative autonomy). Among them, at the end of the 19th century, was Padraig Pearse, who created a mystic nationalism, combining anti-English Catholicism and Celtic mythology. He would pay for his unwavering commitment with his life: he would be shot following the Easter Rising of 1916. Likewise, the union leader James Connolly mixed syndicalist Marxism and the liberatory elements of Irish mythology. He would share the tragic fate of Pearse.

The leaders of the Irish independence movement offer to political observers of all stripes an original cocktail of nationalist labor unionism, mystic Celticism, and social Catholicism, where the ideology of human rights would be mobilized against the British not in an individualist sense, featuring, for reference, a man detached from any social bond with the past, thus a man who is modeled as a “nameless apostasy from reality.” On the contrary, from the start Irish Republican ideology reasons according a vision of man that fits into into a cultural, social, and bio-ethnic whole. All that must also be the object of legal protection with a corollary that any attack, anywhere in the world, on one of these ethnic-social-cultural ensembles is an attack on a fundamental human right, the right to belong to a culture. So the rights of man, for the Irish, are inseparable from the cultures that animate and feed human societies.

After the Second World War, the Welsh would take up the cause of the Bretons pursued by the Republic, which would be condemned by the International Court of Human Rights for crimes against Breton culture: this fact is quite evidently forgotten, because it was knowingly hidden. Today, notably following the peremptory tirades of the “nouveaux philosophes,” whose path begins around 1978 and continues today, forty years later (!), with the hysterical fulminations of Bernard-Henri Lévy, the Republic sees itself as the defender par excellence of human rights: it is henceforth piquant and amusing to recall that it was condemned on a charge brought by the Welsh and Irish for crimes against a vernacular culture of the Hexagon, and consequently any politically act that ultimately infringes the rights of a people’s culture, or denies it the mere right to exist and propagate, is equally a crime liable for an equivalent sentence. So there exist other possible interpretations and applications of human rights than those that automatically treat anyone who claims an identity rooted in physical belonging as backwards or potentially fascist. Thus human rights are perfectly compatible with the right to live in a rooted, specific, and inalienable culture that ultimately has a sacred value, on soil it has literally turned for centuries. Hervé Juvin, through an original and politically relevant interpretation of the ethnological and anthropological works of Claude Lévi-Strauss and Robert Jaulin, is the one who has shown us the way to follow today in order to leave behind this deleterious atmosphere, where we are called to swear an inextinguishable hatred towards what we are deep within ourselves, to rob ourselves of what’s deep in our hearts in order to wallow in the nihilism of consumerism and political correctness.

I partially owe this Celticism,both revolutionary and identitarian, to the German activist, sociologist, and ethnologist Henning Eichberg, theorist and defender of identities everyone in the world, who expressed an analogous Celticism in a militant and programmatic work, published at the start of the 1980s, at the same time Olier Mordrel published his “Mythe de l’Hexagone.” Elsewhere, my friend Siegfried Bublies would give the title Wir Selbst to his non-conformist, national-revolutionary magazine, the German translation of the Gaelic Sinn Fein (“We Ourselves”). Bublies was the editor of Eichberg’s polemical and political texts, who passed away, alas too soon, in April 2017.

In “Pages celtiques”, I also pay homage to Olier Mordrel, the Breton combatant, and define the notion of carnal fatherland, while castigating the ideologies that want to eradicate or criminalize it.

You’ve restarted Trans-European activities. How do you the judge the evolution of “identitarian”forces in Europe?

No, I’ve restarted nothing at all. I’m too old. We must leave it to the youth, who are doing very well according to the criteria and divides inherent to their generation, according to modes of communication that I haven’t mastered as well as they have, such as social networks, videos on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, or others. The institutions challenging the ambient mismanagement are multiplying at a good pace because we are experiencing a consolidated conservative revolution in relation to what it was, lying fallow, twenty or thirty years ago. It’s true that the dominant powers have not kept their promises: from the Thirty Glorious Years, we’ve passed to the Thirty Piteous Year, according to the Swiss writer Alexandre Junod, who I knew as a child and has grown up so much … And he is still optimistic, this boy: if he wrote a book, he would have to mention the “Thirty Shitty Years.” As we’ve fallen very very low. It’s really the Kali Yuga, as the traditionalists who like to mediate on Hindu or Vedic texts say. I modestly put myself in the service of new initiatives. The identitarian forces today are diverse but the common denominators between these initiatives are multiplying, quite happily. We must work for convergences and synergies (as I’ve always said…). My editor Laurent Hocq has limited himself to announcing three international colloquiums in order to promote our books in Lille, Paris, and Rome. That’s all. For my part, I will limit myself to advise initiatives like the “Synergies européennes” summer universities, even if they are very theoretical, as they allow me to encounter and adapt fruitful strategies for the years to come.